In OCCA case No. F-2019-37, Suggs appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on that count due to an instructional error, while affirming the convictions on the other counts. One judge dissented.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SHANNON SHEREE JOHNSON,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2018-1004** **FILED FEB 13, 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 18, 2017, Appellant Shannon Sheree Johnson entered a plea of guilty in Oklahoma County District Case No. CF-2015-8771. The trial court delayed her sentencing in this case and suspended the probation requirements for her prior cases—CF-2013-2846, CF-2014-1596, and CM-2015-1832—pending successful completion of the Oklahoma County Mental Health Court program. According to the plea agreement, if Appellant did not successfully complete the Mental Health Court, the trial court would revoke her suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2013-2846 and CF-2014-1596, convert her deferred sentences to convictions with a one-year prison sentence in Case No. CM-2015-1832, and impose concurrent ten-year sentences for Counts 1 and 2 in Case No. CF-2015-8771. The State filed a motion to terminate Appellant’s participation in the Mental Health Court, alleging her non-compliance with the program, including failure to follow court rules, lack of progress, unauthorized departure from inpatient treatment, and not graduating from treatment. After a hearing, Special Judge Geary Walke terminated her participation in Mental Health Court and sentenced her in accordance with her plea agreement. Appellant contends that the termination was an abuse of discretion, arguing that the judge should have considered intermediate sanctions before imposing the sentences. She cites her period of sobriety prior to the hearing as a reason for less severe punishment options. However, evidence presented at the hearing indicated that Appellant had consistently missed meetings, court appearances, and drug tests, and had not made adequate efforts to complete her treatment. Appellant's counsel argues that Judge Walke should have recognized relapses as part of the rehabilitation process under 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 472(F). This section allows for discretion in determining whether conduct justifies revocation of a participant from the program. The record does not support Appellant's position that Judge Walke acted unreasonably or arbitrarily in the face of substantial evidence demonstrating her failure to comply with the program. As Appellant has not shown that the trial court's decision was contrary to law or the facts of the case, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. **DECISION** The termination of Appellant's participation in the Mental Health Court program is AFFIRMED. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES** **ON APPEAL** Melissa French, Counsel for Defendant Andrea Digilio Miller, Counsel for Appellant Heather Coyle, Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Attorney General Tessa Henry, Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-901** **NAJEE JAMALL COX, Appellant,** **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant, Najee Jamall Cox, appeals from the acceleration of his deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2014-5486 in Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Ray C. Elliott. On January 30, 2017, Cox entered a guilty plea to Burglary in the First Degree, and his judgment and sentencing were deferred for seven years, with probation conditions effective until January 29, 2024. On March 20, 2018, the State filed an application to accelerate the deferred sentence, citing multiple violations, including new criminal charges and failure to pay court costs. At the hearing on August 14, 2018, Judge Elliott denied Cox's request for a continuance to allow his co-defendant to testify, after which the hearing proceeded with the State's presentation of evidence from probation officers and law enforcement. **FINDINGS:** 1. **Evidence of Possession**: The court found sufficient evidence supporting that Cox had constructive possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia based on the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and subsequent findings in his vehicle. 2. **Right to Present Testimony**: Cox was given the opportunity to present a defense but failed to secure the presence of his co-defendant through proper procedural channels. His claim of due process violation was denied due to lack of shown prejudice. 3. **Notice of Reimbursement Fee**: Sufficient evidence demonstrated that Cox was aware of his obligation to pay the District Attorney's fees. 4. **Judicial Notice**: The court's reference to Cox's counsel's reputation did not negatively impact his rights, as the violation found was supported by sufficient evidence regardless. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Cox did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient enough to have affected the outcome. Based on the analysis of these propositions, the order of acceleration issued by the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. **CONCLUSION**: The mandate will be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **Representatives:** - **Counsel for Appellant**: Matthew Tate Wise - **Counsel for State**: Kirk Martin, Mike Hunter **Decision by**: LEWIS, Presiding Judge **Concurrences**: KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click here to download the full PDF of the opinion.](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-901_1735118825.pdf)
This decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals pertains to Conner E. Dover's petition for writ of certiorari, which was denied. Dover had pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and aggravated attempting to elude a police officer. His sentencing followed the completion of a regimented inmate discipline program, resulting in five years of imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively. Dover sought to withdraw his plea based on an argument that the court did not sentence him according to his plea agreement. However, the court found that his plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, and dissatisfaction with the sentence is not a valid reason for withdrawal. The court confirmed that the plea met the necessary legal standards and was not abusive, hence no relief was granted. The denial of the writ indicates the court's decision to affirm the original judgment and sentence. The legal principles applied include reviewing whether a plea was voluntarily and intelligently made, whether the sentence is excessive, the effectiveness of counsel, and the state's power to prosecute. Overall, the court held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Dover's motion to withdraw the plea, supporting the conclusion that his plea agreement was validly applied.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CHRISTIAN EMMANUEL REYES,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-536** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN - SUMMARY OPINION** **CLERK** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Christian Emmanuel Reyes appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-6460 and CF-2017-3715 by Honorable Glenn Jones. **Background:** On November 13, 2013, Appellant pled guilty to Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer in Case No. CF-2013-6460. The trial court sentenced him on July 30, 2014, to five years with all but two years suspended for Count 1, and one year for Count 3, to run concurrently. On July 6, 2017, Appellant pled guilty to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor in Case No. CF-2017-3715, receiving a five-year sentence with all but 100 days suspended. The State agreed not to file for revocation on Case No. CF-2013-6460 as part of the plea deal. On April 6, 2018, the State filed a 1st Amended Application to Revoke, citing non-payment of fees and the commission of a new crime, Second Degree Burglary, in a separate case (CF-2017-6227). Following a revocation hearing, the trial court fully revoked Appellant’s suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Improper Introduction of Evidence:** Appellant argues the State’s introduction of testimony regarding his behavior violated 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B) and the standards set forth in *Burks v. State*. He claims he did not receive proper notice and therefore is entitled to relief. He made no objection during the hearing, waiving this issue except for plain error review. Appellant's argument fails, as he did not demonstrate that any error occurred. 2. **Insufficient Evidence of Burglary:** Appellant contends the State failed to prove he entered the victim’s home intending to steal. However, sufficient evidence supported that he intended to steal, meeting the *preponderance of the evidence* standard required in revocation hearings. **Conclusion:** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences is affirmed, as the court found competent evidence to justify the revocation and there was no abuse of discretion. **MANDATE** is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** Micah Sielert and Hallie Bovos for Appellant; Tiffany Noble and Mike Hunter for the State; Tessa Henry for Appellee. **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-536_1734522451.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2017-769, Tyrees Dotson appealed his conviction for Murder in the Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Dotson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Tyrees Dotson was found guilty of Murder in the Second Degree after a trial in which he received a sentence of thirty years in prison. The judge ordered that this sentence would start after he completed another sentence he was already serving. During the trial, Dotson raised several issues. First, he argued that it was unfair for the court to allow the jury to hear a witness's earlier testimony instead of having the witness speak during the trial. Dotson thought this hurt his case. However, the court found that the state had tried hard to find the missing witness and was fair in allowing the earlier testimony. Dotson also claimed there were problems with other evidence presented during the trial. He believed that some photos of the victim were too much and could make the jury feel very emotional instead of making a fair decision. The court disagreed and said that the evidence was important to explain the situation. Another issue Dotson raised was that the state unfairly removed some black jurors from the jury. The court looked at this claim and found that the state's reasons for removing those jurors were based on valid, non-racial reasons. Dotson also said that his lawyer did not do a good job defending him, which made it unfair. The court found no evidence that his lawyer's actions harmed his case. Finally, Dotson felt that all the mistakes in the trial added up to make it unfair. However, since the court found no significant errors, they decided that there was also no cumulative error. Overall, the court concluded that Dotson's conviction and sentence were valid and went on to say that a small error in the paperwork needed fixing but did not affect the outcome of the case. Thus, his appeal was turned down.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-272, Lavonte Antonio Johnson appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the acceleration of his deferred sentence to 27 years in prison. One judge dissented. Lavonte Johnson entered a guilty plea in 2014, which was followed by a five-year deferred sentence. However, in 2018, the state sought to accelerate this sentence, claiming Johnson had violated probation by possessing a firearm and committing bail jumping. During a traffic stop, police found Johnson could not provide a driver's license and that he had a gun with him. Johnson argued that the police had to give him a Miranda warning before asking about the gun, as he believed it was a custodial interrogation. The court found that because this was a routine traffic stop, the police were not required to issue a Miranda warning. Johnson's statements about the gun were deemed admissible. The court reviewed the decision to accelerate Johnson's sentence and found no abuse of discretion. Therefore, Johnson’s appeal was denied, and the original sentence was upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1038, Zachary Craig Anderson appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Craig Anderson was found guilty after a trial for neglecting a child, which is against the law. The judge gave him a sentence of 20 years in prison but also gave him credit for the time he had already served. Anderson did not agree with his conviction and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the decision made in his original trial. Anderson claimed that his lawyer did not help him effectively by not challenging the statements he made to the police. He argued that his lawyer should have questioned whether those statements could be used against him in court because he was not read his rights, which are important for protecting people when they are being questioned by police. These rights are known as Miranda rights, and they are designed to help ensure that people are not forced to speak without understanding their rights. In the appeal, the court looked at whether Anderson's lawyer did a good job or not. To win this argument, Anderson had to show that his lawyer's performance was poor and that this hurt his chances of a fair trial. The court found that Anderson did not show evidence that his lawyer was ineffective. They said that Anderson actually voluntarily talked to the police and did not feel pressured or threatened. Since he cooperated, the court thought there was no reason for the lawyer to challenge his statements to the police. After looking at all the evidence and arguments, the court decided to keep Anderson's conviction and sentence as they were. They also denied his request for a hearing to discuss the effectiveness of his lawyer's help during the trial. In summary, Anderson's appeal did not lead to any changes in his conviction. The court agreed that the statements he made to the police were allowed and that his lawyer’s actions were reasonable in the situation.
In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0601, Danyale Lamont McCollough appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Danyale McCollough had pleaded guilty to several charges over the years, which included possession of a firearm and robbery with a firearm. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke these rules, his suspended sentences could be revoked, and he could go to prison. Later, the State, which is the side that brings charges against people, said that McCollough had committed a new crime. This led to a hearing where a judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The judge used some evidence from a different trial to decide this, which McCollough argued was not fair. McCollough said it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from another case without proving it was final. The appeals court agreed with him. They said that the judge had made a mistake by not following the correct legal rules and taking evidence from another trial that was not about the same issues directly related to McCollough’s case. Because of this mistake, the court reversed the revocation of McCollough’s sentences and sent the case back for more review and another chance to prove if he had really violated his probation rules.
In OCCA case No. F 2010-1191, Mark A. Sanders appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and carrying a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-340, Robert Dewayne Hayes, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder Youthful Offender, Shooting with Intent to Kill, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for First Degree Murder and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, but reversed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0484, Shaun Lee Gessel appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and threatening a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but ordered the cases to be sent back to the District Court for re-sentencing to fix the errors related to how the sentences were to run. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. J-2008-02, the appellant appealed her conviction for murder in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to be treated as a youthful offender. One judge dissented. The case involved a young person who was trying to be treated differently under the law because of her age. She argued that she should not face adult sentencing for her crime and provided evidence to support her request. The court looked at this evidence and decided that she had established enough reasons to be classified as a youthful offender. The ruling from the lower court had denied her request, but the appeals court reversed that decision. They instructed the lower court to certify her as a youthful offender, meaning she would be treated more like a minor in terms of sentencing. The dissenting judge believed the initial court hearing was thorough and that the reasons to deny youthful offender status were valid and supported by the facts. This judge argued that the decision to overturn the denial did not stand against the well-reasoned basis that was originally provided.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-50, the petitioner appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a handgun. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented. The petitioner was originally charged in the Oklahoma County District Court with unlawful possession of a handgun based on previous felony convictions. He pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to ten years in prison for each case. These sentences were set to run at the same time, which is known as concurrently. Later, the petitioner asked to withdraw his guilty plea. He believed he did not receive proper legal help during the hearing for this request because his lawyer had a conflict of interest. This means that the lawyer might have been more focused on their own issues instead of helping the petitioner. Even though the petitioner did not raise the problem of the conflict during the hearing, the court found that the situation affected the performance of his lawyer. Because of this, the court decided that the petitioner had been denied his right to effective legal assistance. The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, which is a formal request to review the decision, and sent the case back to the district court for a new hearing. At this new hearing, the petitioner will have the chance to be represented by a lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1168, Steven Allen Flynn, Jr. appealed his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder, Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Concealing Stolen Property, Possession of Methamphetamine, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. However, they modified his conviction for Second-Degree Felony Murder to First Degree Manslaughter While Driving Under the Influence and reduced his sentence to twenty years. The court also reversed the conviction for Possession of Marijuana with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-378, Kevin Davis appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm part of the revocation while reversing another part. One judge dissented. Kevin Davis had previously been sentenced for possession of marijuana and for driving under the influence. These sentences included portions that were suspended, meaning he could avoid serving time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, when Davis was convicted of attempted robbery, the state sought to revoke his suspended sentences. The decision in the case centered around two main issues. First, Davis argued that the court unfairly required him to serve his revoked sentences one after the other, instead of allowing him to serve them at the same time as his new sentence. The court found that the judge had the right to make that decision and did not see it as wrongful. Second, Davis claimed that the court had no power to revoke his earlier marijuana charge since the time to do so had already passed. The court agreed with him on this point and decided that the application to revoke was filed too late. As a result, the court kept the revocation of one sentence in place but instructed the lower court to dismiss the application concerning the other sentence because it was no longer valid.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-603, Maurice Ladon Miller appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Maurice Ladon Miller was found guilty of serious crimes, including murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for life for the murder and for six years for conspiracy. The sentences were to be served at the same time and also added to a federal sentence he was already serving. After this, Miller appealed his case. Miller had two main arguments. First, he believed his confession to the police was not voluntary because he thought it was protected by an immunity agreement. Second, he felt he couldn’t present his defense because his lawyer was not allowed to show the jury a recording where a co-defendant said Miller was not involved in the murder. The court looked carefully at both of these arguments. They found that the confession was voluntary. Even though there was some confusion about the immunity agreement, the police had informed Miller that it did not protect him from state charges, and he waived his rights willingly. Therefore, they decided that there was no error in admitting his confession. For the second argument, the court examined the situation where Miller's lawyer recorded the co-defendant admitting to the crime but saying Miller was not involved. This recording was not allowed to be shown to the jury, which the court found to be a mistake. They explained that the recording could have been helpful for Miller's defense, as it contradicted the claim that he was involved in the murder. The absence of this evidence might have affected the trial. Ultimately, the court reversed Miller's convictions and ordered a new trial because they believed the exclusion of the co-defendant’s statement could have led to a different outcome. The dissenting judge felt the evidence against Miller was strong, and the trial court made the right choice in excluding the co-defendant's statement. Thus, the case will be retried to ensure that Miller has a chance to present all relevant evidence in his defense.
In OCCA case No. C 2005-628, Roscoe Dansby appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Obtaining Money by Means of a False Check. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. The court found that Dansby was deprived of effective assistance of counsel during a critical stage of the process because his attorney had a conflict of interest. Thus, the court remanded the case for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty pleas and ordered that a conflict-free counsel be appointed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for multiple counts of serious crimes, including First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy, following a jury trial in Oklahoma County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Marion Lewis was found guilty of several serious charges after a trial where he represented himself. He went to trial and was sentenced to life without the chance for parole for most counts and twenty years for another. He believed the court did not properly warn him about the risks of representing himself and raised concerns about his mental ability to stand trial. He also argued that the trial court did not allow him enough time to prepare his defense, which he felt hurt his case. The court found that the trial judge did not give Lewis enough time after he was allowed to represent himself just a few days before the trial started. This lack of time made it hard for him to gather witnesses and evidence that he thought were important for his defense. The court decided the denial of his request for more time was unfair and violated his rights. In the end, the court reversed Lewis's convictions and ordered a new trial, agreeing that the trial process had not been fair. However, one judge disagreed, believing that the trial court acted correctly in denying the request for more time, stating that Lewis had not shown he would have been able to present a strong defense even if he had been given more time.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1127, Charles Clarence Tiger appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including conspiracy to commit a felony and several burglaries. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming others. One judge dissented on the reversal of the conspiracy conviction. Tiger faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of numerous crimes, including conspiracy to commit burglary, and was sentenced to serve a long time in prison. He later appealed, arguing several points, including that he didn't get a fair and speedy trial, that his lawyer didn't help him properly, and that he was punished too harshly for his crimes. The court reviewed these claims carefully. They agreed that Tiger's right to a speedy trial was not violated and that his lawyer did provide effective legal help. However, they found that two of the charges against him conflicted with each other. They decided that being punished for both burglary and robbery from the same incident was not right, so they reversed the burglary charge related to that. Additionally, the court felt there wasn't enough evidence to support Tiger's conspiracy charge, so that one was also reversed. While some of Tiger's arguments were accepted, others were rejected. The judges agreed that the remaining charges that stayed upheld were fair and within legal limits, meaning he would still have to serve his time for them. In summary, the court decided to dismiss two of the charges and keep the others, showing that while some of Tiger's claims were valid, many were not. One judge disagreed with the court's choice to dismiss the conspiracy charge, believing there was enough proof to uphold it.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1252, Reed appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Reed faced charges including first-degree murder and possession of a firearm, but the jury could not agree on the murder charge, leading to a mistrial for that count. The state decided not to pursue one of the firearm charges. The jury convicted Reed on the remaining firearm possession charge and recommended a life sentence. On appeal, Reed argued that the trial court made a mistake by not declaring a mistrial for each charge after the jury couldn't reach a verdict on the murder. He believed his life sentence was excessive and went against the Constitution. The court reviewed the facts and concluded that the trial court acted within its rights when it denied Reed's request for a mistrial. However, they found that a life sentence for the firearm possession was too harsh under the circumstances. As a result, they changed Reed's sentence to twenty years in prison instead of life. The final decision was to keep Reed's conviction, but to lessen his punishment.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-189, James Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. James Dean Meadows was found guilty of First Degree Murder by a jury. The trial took place in Oklahoma City from February 10 to 18, 2003. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for his crime. After being sentenced on February 21, 2003, Meadows appealed, bringing up five issues he believed were wrong with the trial. One of the key issues was about how his videotaped statement to the police was collected. Meadows argued that the police violated his rights by not properly informing him of his right to remain silent before they questioned him. He claimed that he was not voluntarily giving his statement, as he was taken from his home by police with guns drawn, and they did not tell him he was under arrest at the time. The police later interviewed him at their station, where they pressured him to admit his involvement in the crime. The court found that Meadows was indeed not free to leave when the police took him from his home, which meant that he was effectively under arrest without being formally informed. Because of this illegal seizure, the court ruled that his confession to the police could not be used as evidence against him. The court stated that such a confession was obtained without the rights requiring a formal warning being given to Meadows. Since the court decided that Meadow's confession was not admissible, the judgment against him was reversed, meaning he would have to be tried again. Because of this decision, the other issues raised in the appeal were not considered. In summary, the court determined that James Dean Meadows should have a new trial because the way the police obtained his confession was illegal and violated his rights.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-1036, Mark Anthony Troutt appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Troutt was tried and found guilty of distributing cocaine, which is a serious crime. The trial took place in the Oklahoma County District Court. During the trial, Troutt's lawyers argued that he did not receive a fair trial because the judge did not let the jury hear about his defense, which was based on entrapment. Entrapment means that someone was tricked into committing a crime they wouldn’t have done otherwise. The jury decided that Troutt was guilty and gave him a punishment of fifteen years in prison. Troutt did not agree with the decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the case. In the appeal, Troutt's lawyers pointed out three main problems with the trial. First, they said the trial judge should have allowed the jury to hear about his defense of entrapment. They believed this was important because the jury needed to decide for themselves if Troutt had been tricked into committing the crime. Second, they claimed that some of the evidence presented during the trial was not relevant and could have unfairly influenced the jury. Third, they argued that together, all these issues made it impossible for Troutt to get a fair trial. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Troutt had been denied a fair trial. They ruled that the judge's refusal to let the jury consider his entrapment defense was a significant mistake. Because of this, the court decided to reverse Troutt's conviction and ordered a new trial where the jury could properly consider all the evidence, including his defense. The case highlights the importance of a fair legal process and the right for a defendant to have a jury hear their side of the story.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1259, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree, robbery with imitation firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented, stating that eleven life sentences shocked the court's conscience but eight did not.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1116, Billy Ray Rodgers appealed his conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Billy Ray Rodgers was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine in Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison and a fine of fifty thousand dollars. After the trial, he appealed the decision, raising several reasons why he believed the conviction should be overturned. First, he argued that the evidence did not show he actively participated in making methamphetamine. The law states that for someone to be convicted of a crime, there must be proof that they either committed the crime themselves or helped someone else do it. In this case, the court agreed with Rodgers. They said that simply being present at the scene of the crime was not enough to prove that he was guilty of manufacturing meth. Rodgers' lawyer had argued that the trial judge did not give the jury proper instructions. He also claimed there were mistakes made by the prosecutor and that his own lawyer did not do a good job, which all contributed to an unfair trial. Lastly, he said that the evidence collected against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court decided that there was not enough proof to support the conviction. They found that being present at the meth lab did not equal participating in its operation. Therefore, they reversed his conviction and ordered that the case be dismissed entirely. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction. They argued that Rodgers was present where meth was being manufactured, and there were items connecting him to the lab. This judge felt that a reasonable juror could find him guilty based on the evidence, which included his fingerprints on lab equipment and his social security card found there. In summary, the court overruled the conviction because they believed the evidence did not sufficiently prove Rodgers was involved in the crime, while one judge disagreed and thought the evidence was enough for a conviction.