Oklahoma County District Court Archives - Page 2 of 2

F 2002-869

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 29, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-869, Bennie Jay Edwards, Jr., appealed his conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and Breaking and Entering. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for Concealing Stolen Property to ten years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Bennie Jay Edwards, Jr. was found guilty in a trial that took place in May 2002. The jury decided he should go to prison for 30 years for the first crime, which was concealing stolen property, and one year for the second crime, which was breaking and entering. These sentences were set to happen at the same time, meaning he would serve the longest one. After the trial, Edwards appealed, saying that there were mistakes during the trial and that he did not get a fair chance to defend himself. His lawyers said the jury was told the wrong information about how long he could be sentenced for his crime of concealing stolen property. The proper punishment should have been four years to life in prison, but the jury was told it could be no less than 20 years. After looking into the issues raised by Edwards, the court decided that he did not lose his chance for a fair trial because of the mistakes that were made about the instructions. However, they agreed that the jury was given the wrong information about the punishment for his first conviction. Because of this error, the court changed the sentence for his first conviction from 30 years to 10 years. The second conviction remained the same. The court explained that even though there were some mistakes, they did not think those mistakes were serious enough to change the conviction itself, just the sentence. In the end, the court found Edwards guilty but reduced his punishment for one of the crimes due to the trial mistakes related to jury instructions.

F 2002-772

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 29, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-772, Joseph Alexander Simrak appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Firearm after a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was arrested. He was found with methamphetamine and a firearm, which he challenged in court, arguing that the arrest was not lawful. The appellant claimed that because his arrest was unlawful, all the evidence found during the arrest should not have been used against him in court. The court agreed with the appellant and found that the information used to justify his arrest was not reliable. Therefore, the evidence from the unlawful arrest should not have been included in the trial. The jury had previously decided that the appellant should go to prison for ten years for each charge, and those sentences were to be served one after the other. However, since the court found the arrest illegal, both convictions were reversed. The remaining issues raised by the appellant were not considered because the ruling on the arrest was significant enough to change the outcome of the case. Ultimately, the court stated that the appellant would not be punished for these convictions due to the way the evidence was obtained.

F 2003-648

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-648, Remigio Rivas appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences from 100 years to 75 years for each count. One judge dissented.

F 2002-157

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 1, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-157, Kenneth Lee Dueitt appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), Possession of a Precursor Substance (Red Phosphorus), Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Manufacturing Methamphetamine, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia while reversing the conviction for Possession of a Precursor Substance and remanding it for a new trial. One judge dissented on the decision regarding the reversal of Count 2.

C-2001-514

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 4, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-514, the petitioner appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder (by permitting child abuse). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to a life sentence with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented.

F 2000-1241

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1241, McCandless appealed her conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that two of her three convictions were unfair and should not stand because they violated laws against being punished twice for the same action. McCandless claimed that finding different types of drugs in her home should only count as one offense. The court agreed with her on that point and reversed two of the convictions. However, the court found sufficient evidence to keep the other two convictions. One member of the court disagreed with this decision.

F-2000-948

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. PR-99-1326, the Petitioners appealed their conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the mistrial declared by the judge was not justified and therefore double jeopardy bars the State from retrying the Petitioners. One judge dissented. The case began when the Petitioners were charged with serious offenses. The first trial ended in a mistrial, which the judge declared after issues arose during a witness's cross-examination. The attorneys raised concerns about whether the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that could help the defense. This evidence related to the witness's background and credibility. The judge felt that the defense attorney’s questions may have harmed the trial, which led him to call for a mistrial. However, after reviewing the trial's events, the court found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial. In other words, the situation did not require such an extreme remedy. The court felt that a warning could have been sufficient to address any perceived problems before resorting to declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the review concluded that the judge made errors in declaring the mistrial and, as a result, the defendants could not be tried again for these charges. The opinion emphasized that once a jury is discharged without sufficient reason, it can lead to violating the defendants' rights under the double jeopardy clause, which prevents someone from being tried for the same crime twice.