In OCCA case No. F-2005-1285, Willard Dean Jackson appealed his conviction for lewd or indecent proposal to a child under sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with directions to enter a judgment of conviction for soliciting a minor for child pornography. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-110, Gilbert Vega, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder (while in the commission of Attempted Robbery with a Firearm). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gilbert Vega, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for the murder of Francisco Hernandez. This murder happened during an attempted robbery at Hernandez's home in Oklahoma City in December 2003. During the trial, the focus was on whether Vega was involved in the incident that led to Hernandez's death. The night of the murder, Hernandez, his girlfriend, and a cousin were in their home when three armed men broke in, threatening them. They physically assaulted the girlfriend and demanded information about money and drugs believed to be in the house. After the attackers had beaten and bound the victims, shots were fired. A neighbor heard the commotion and called for help, but by the time police arrived, Hernandez was dead. Evidence against Vega came mainly from his girlfriend, Rachel Prior. She testified that Vega and his cousin left their home that night intending to rob someone. When Vega returned around 3 a.m., he allegedly threatened her with a gun and described how the robbery went wrong. He claimed to have physically assaulted the girlfriend of the victim and had shot a weapon during the incident. Moments later, police found a gun linked to the crime at Prior's house, and DNA evidence from that gun matched Vega's DNA. In the case, several arguments were debated regarding evidence and trial procedures. Vega's team argued that he was denied a fair trial due to certain evidence being admitted. This included evidence related to a boot print found at the crime scene. The court ruled that these demonstrations were not misleading to the jury and were part of a larger set of evidence against Vega, which included strong DNA evidence. Vega also claimed there were errors in allowing certain evidence about DNA testing from beer bottles found near the crime scene and argued his jury was not properly instructed regarding sentencing rules that could affect his case. However, the court found no significant errors and stated that evidence presented at the trial, including Prior's testimony, was strong enough to support the conviction. Ultimately, while Vega's conviction for murder was upheld, the court determined that he needed to be resentenced.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-68, Gregory Scott Thompson appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. ### Summary of the Case Gregory Scott Thompson was found guilty of First Degree Felony Murder after being involved in an attempted robbery that led to the death of Jerry McQuin. The events occurred on November 18, 2003, when Randy Davis and Clifford Hamilton went to Laquita Stevenson’s house. Tensions rose between Davis and McQuin, who was living with Stevenson at the time. Thompson, along with Gatewood, arrived after Davis called him over. When McQuin returned home, Thompson and Gatewood armed with guns demanded McQuin's car keys. McQuin was forced outside where he was shot after a brief confrontation about the keys. Stevenson, still inside, heard the commotion and eventually the gunshots that killed McQuin. Although no one directly saw Thompson shoot McQuin, evidence showed he was actively involved in the robbery attempt that resulted in McQuin's death. ### Court Opinions The court addressed several key legal arguments presented by Thompson: 1. **Exclusion of Evidence**: Thompson argued that the trial court should have allowed evidence that McQuin had drugs and money, which could suggest a drug deal gone wrong. The court ruled that this evidence didn’t sufficiently connect another person to the crime and would risk confusing the jury. 2. **Cross-Examination Limitations**: Thompson claimed his rights were violated when the court limited his lawyer's ability to cross-examine witnesses. The court found that the trial judge exercised discretion within reasonable limits. 3. **Custodial Statements**: Thompson contended that his rights were violated when his statements made after invoking his right to counsel were allowed into evidence. The court found that he did not clearly assert his right to counsel at the time and therefore the statements were admissible. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Thompson maintained that there was not enough evidence to convict him since no one saw him shoot McQuin. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to show he was an active participant in the attempted robbery, thus affirming the conviction. 5. **Sentencing Issues**: Thompson challenged various sentencing procedures, including that the trial was improperly bifurcated and that he was not correctly informed about his eligibility for parole. The court acknowledged these errors and modified the sentence accordingly. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Thompson argued that his attorney failed to effectively represent him in several respects. The court ruled that these claims did not demonstrate a significant chance that the outcome would have been different. Both the prosecution's case and Thompson's defense contributed to the complex nature of the trial. Ultimately, while his conviction was upheld, the errors in sentencing led to a modification of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-228, Gordon Fife Franklin appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Cruelty to Animals. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Cruelty to Animals and to modify the sentences for the remaining convictions to 55 years each instead of 250 years. One judge dissented. Franklin was found guilty by a jury and received a very long sentence for his crimes. The jury thought that his actions were very bad and wanted him to spend a lot of time in prison. However, the court later said the sentences were too long. They decided that the evidence for one of the charges, Cruelty to Animals, was not strong enough to keep that conviction. During the trial, the court let different pieces of evidence be shown to the jury. Some of this evidence was questioned later, but the court said that it didn't really change the outcome of the trial. They said that even though there were mistakes made in the trial, the serious charges of Kidnapping and Assault were still valid. Overall, the court agreed that while Franklin did do some wrong things, the punishments should be reduced to a more reasonable amount of time. In conclusion, Franklin's punishment was lightened, and the charge for hurting the animal was removed completely.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-262, Gessel appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Gessel’s revocation was not valid due to a lack of adequate notice about the reasons for his revocation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-911, Timothy Griffith appealed his conviction for two counts of Attempted First Degree Rape and eight counts of sexual abuse of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences except for one count of attempted first degree rape, which was reversed and dismissed. One judge dissented. Griffith was found guilty of two attempted rapes and eight counts of sexually abusing a child, and he was given a total of 61 years in prison. He argued that both his rights against double jeopardy and his right to a fair trial had been violated, among other claims. The court reviewed each of Griffith's arguments. For the first point, the court found there was enough evidence to support the charges and no violation of double jeopardy. For the second and third points, the court ruled that the prosecutor had the discretion to charge Griffith with attempted rape instead of just intent to commit rape, so the trial was fair. Regarding the case's fourth and fifth points, the court decided that the additional testimonies from adult witnesses and the child's prior statements were allowable and did not greatly harm Griffith's case. The sixth allegation about a medical opinion from a physician assistant was also found not to be a problem since it did not influence the jury's decision directly. On point seven, the court agreed that the judge made a mistake by not letting Griffith fully present his defense. This part was significant because it led to the reversal of one of the counts against him. Finally, the court found that the sentences imposed were not excessive despite the overall situation, and there were no errors that would justify further action. In summary, most of Griffith's arguments were not persuasive to the court, and while some parts of the conviction remained, one count was removed due to the identified error.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1161, Isaac Gardner appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy and Attempted Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gardner's conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gardner was found guilty of Forcible Oral Sodomy and the jury recommended a lengthy prison sentence based on evidence presented, including Gardner's past admissions about similar actions. Although the judge allowed some evidence regarding Gardner's past, they did not believe it overly impacted the trial since the jury ultimately acquitted him of the Attempted Sexual Battery charge. Gardner argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to this evidence, but the court disagreed, noting that he had been warned about what evidence would be used against him. They also highlighted that his conviction was upheld because the jury was able to examine the evidence properly. Additionally, Gardner claimed that he should have been informed about parole eligibility under the 85% Rule, which says he would need to serve most of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged this misstep and reduced his sentence accordingly. In summary, the court confirmed that while Gardner’s initial trial and conviction stood, his sentence was adjusted to reflect what he had rightfully requested before the trial began.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1195, #x appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (cocaine base). In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of the suspended sentence. #n dissented. In this case, the appellant was found guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs back in 1997. He was given a ten-year sentence but was allowed to serve only five years after some of it was suspended. Over the years, he was on probation. However, in September 2005, the state claimed that he had violated his probation by doing something called domestic abuse and by not following a protective order. A hearing took place to investigate these claims. The judge decided that the appellant did break the rules by having some contact that could be considered domestic abuse, but it was a small violation. The contact happened when he was trying to see his baby son, which was allowed by a court order. It seemed that the meeting was short and not planned, and he ended it when it became clear that the other person wouldn't follow the rules. The court thought these special circumstances made the punishment too harsh. They decided to lessen the punishment and only took away one year from the suspended sentence instead of a larger amount. The appellant would still have to follow the rules of his probation after this one year was served. In summary, the court agreed that the appellant had a minor violation worth a one-year revocation, but otherwise, he would return to probation for the rest of his sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-684, Aaron Christopher Marks appealed his conviction for shooting with intent to kill, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for shooting with intent to kill to forty-five years in prison but upheld the conviction. One judge dissented, arguing that there was no need for sentence modification since the jury likely did not need instruction on parole eligibility and the original sentence was justified based on the evidence presented.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-1208, Eric Evan Smith appealed his conviction for 30 counts of Possession of Obscene Material Involving the Participation of a Minor Under the Age of Eighteen. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request to withdraw his plea and ordered a new hearing on the application to withdraw the plea. One judge dissented. Smith had pleaded guilty in a district court, where he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served at the same time, but only serving the first fifteen years of each count. After some time, Smith wanted to change his plea and said it wasn't voluntary because he felt pressured by his attorney. His case was reviewed, and it was determined that there was a conflict between him and his lawyer. Smith argued that his lawyer made him plead guilty by suggesting he would get a lighter sentence if he did so. In the hearing, Smith asserted that his attorney had coerced him into the plea, while his attorney denied it. Because of the angry and conflicting testimonies, the judges believed there was a problem that affected Smith's rights to a fair trial and effective help from a lawyer. The court found that Smith's lawyer could not properly help him because of this conflict. This led them to decide that Smith deserved another chance to explain his case and why he wanted a different plea. The decision meant that Smith had the right to go back to court, where he could present his reasons for wanting to change his plea and have a new decision made on whether his original plea was fair and appropriate. The dissenting judge felt that the court should not have granted this new hearing, believing that Smith's plea was done properly and his lawyer's conflict did not significantly affect the case, arguing that there was no abuse of power in the original decision of the court.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1305, Anthony Joseph Frost appealed his conviction for Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the aggravated attempting to elude charge due to errors during the trial. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Frost faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of two charges. The jury decided on a punishment of 40 years for the first charge and 1 year with a $1,000 fine for the second charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. Frost appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court did not give the jury enough information about parole eligibility and that the court made a mistake by not redacting previous sentence information from his prior convictions. The court found that the trial court did not do anything wrong with the first claim because Frost did not raise an objection during the trial. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake in how previous sentences were presented to the jury. This information could have influenced the jury's decision on the punishment. The court decided to change Frost’s sentence for aggravated attempting to elude from 40 years to 25 years, while keeping the sentence for the drug paraphernalia charge the same. The judges all agreed on some parts of the decision, but one judge disagreed with changing Frost's sentence, believing that the jury should be fully informed about the defendant's history to make a fair decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-524, Robert Scott Pebbles appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his appeal and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Pebbles had pled guilty to the charge as part of a plea agreement and was given a five-year suspended sentence. However, he later claimed that his attorney pressured him into pleading guilty. He stated that he did not understand the requirements of his probation and was misled about the possible consequences of his plea, including a misunderstanding of the maximum punishment for his crime. During a hearing about his motion to withdraw the plea, Pebbles testified that his attorney had told him he could face the death penalty for the rape charge. The court found that the plea was not entered knowingly or voluntarily because Pebbles had been misadvised about the range of punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the death penalty for rape was unconstitutional, which means Pebbles could not face such a punishment. The court reviewed affidavits from attorneys involved in the case that supported Pebbles' claim of being misadvised. The Attorney General acknowledged Pebbles was indeed not eligible for the death penalty for rape. As a result of these findings, the court decided that Pebbles' guilty plea should be withdrawn. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-989, John Fitzgerald Kessee appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Kessee was found guilty of robbing someone and had a long history of prior convictions, which led to a heavy sentence of ninety-nine years. He claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and said that the way he was tried for the second time after a mistrial violated his rights. He also argued that there were mistakes made during the sentencing that should change his punishment. After looking closely at the case and the arguments made, the court found that there was enough proof for the jury to reach a decision about Kessee’s guilt. They decided that the issues surrounding the mistrial didn’t violate his rights. However, they agreed that the way the prosecutor talked about Kessee’s past sentences was wrong and affected his right to a fair trial. As a result, the court decided to lower his sentence to forty-five years in prison instead of ninety-nine. While most judges agreed with the decision, one judge disagreed with changing the sentence, believing the jury's decision should stand as is.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-773, Alfonzo Daniel appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen and Making Indecent Proposals to a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Daniel was charged with serious crimes in Oklahoma. He went to trial, where the jury found him guilty of two counts. He was given twenty years for each count, and the sentences were to be served one after the other, making it a total of forty years. Mr. Daniel thought the trial was unfair for many reasons and decided to appeal. He raised several complaints about what happened during the trial. He argued that a videotaped interview of him should not have been allowed because it was wrongly obtained. He also claimed the judge didn’t watch the whole tape before deciding it was involuntary. He felt that certain information, known as hearsay, was also improperly shared during the trial, and that some testimonies were included which didn’t really connect to his case. Mr. Daniel believed he couldn't properly defend himself because his questioning of the witness was limited and some rules given to the jury were unfair. After looking through all the records and arguments, the court agreed that the admission of the videotaped interview was a significant mistake. The court stated that this mistake was not minor and could have affected the jury’s decision. Therefore, they decided to send the case back for a new trial, where these mistakes could be corrected. The other points Mr. Daniel raised were not examined further since the first mistake was enough to warrant a new trial. The judge who disagreed believed that the errors made were not significant enough to change the outcome of the trial and felt the conviction should stand.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-1108, Jonathan Andrew McCubbin appealed his conviction for four counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCubbin's petition for Writ of Certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his application to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: McCubbin entered a blind guilty plea, which means he agreed to plead guilty without a deal or knowing what his sentence would be. He was sentenced to fifty years in prison, but would serve only thirty years for each count, all at the same time. After some time, McCubbin wanted to take back his guilty plea and tried to do so by asking the court. He argued that his lawyer did not give him good legal help and that their interests were not the same; his lawyer seemed to be against him during the hearings. The court found that there was a true conflict between McCubbin and his lawyer. The lawyer was unable to defend him properly because they were arguing with each other over whether McCubbin should be allowed to withdraw his plea or not. Because of this conflict and the lack of good legal help, the court said McCubbin needed a new chance to withdraw his guilty plea. This meant the case would go back to the trial court for a proper hearing where he could have a different lawyer represent him.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-850, the petitioner appealed her conviction for five crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for most of the convictions, but they did reverse and dismiss one misdemeanor count. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-903, David Wayne Laughlin appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Laughlin’s request to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case for a new hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-82, Billy Dale Lathrop appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine, possession of precursor chemicals, and possession of paraphernalia, but to reverse the convictions for child endangerment. Three judges dissented regarding one of the convictions.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-450, Edward Allen Rayls appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Rayls was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to a fine and time in jail. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction. He also said the court made a mistake by not allowing a 911 tape that could have helped his case and that the prosecutor was unfair. The court looked at all the information and agreed with Rayls that there wasn’t enough evidence to say he was trying to get away from the police. The law says that for someone to be guilty of attempting to elude, they must be intentionally trying to escape. The facts showed that Rayls was driving normally and didn't break any traffic laws when a police officer tried to pull him over. He didn’t see the police car until just before he stopped his vehicle. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the judgment and instructed to dismiss the case. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge thought the jury had enough evidence to make their decision and that the evidence should be respected. The dissenting opinion argued that there was a reasonable basis for the jury to find Rayls guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence they heard during the trial.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-784, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Stalking. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Appellant's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The Appellant, Bradley Allen Crawford, was initially convicted of Stalking in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to six months in county jail. During his appeal, he argued that he should have been allowed to show that the complaining witness might have had a reason to be biased against him. During the trial, the Appellant wanted to present evidence related to a child custody case that involved the complaining witness. However, the trial court did not permit this information. The Appellant also tried to question the complaining witness about her possible bias during her testimony, but the trial court stopped him, stating that it was related to other domestic issues. After the trial, the Appellant requested a new trial because the judge had not allowed him to present evidence about the witness’s potential bias, but this request was denied. The court noted that it’s important to allow evidence that could show a witness might be biased. It explained that this kind of evidence is usually admissible in court. The appellate court found that the Appellant was not given a chance to show that the complaining witness had motives that could affect her testimony. They pointed out that the witness's credibility was crucial to the trial since everything the police said was based on her accounts. The appellate court decided that the trial court's errors in not allowing the questioning about the witness's bias were significant enough that they could have changed the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the Appellant's original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back to be tried again.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-443, Kenneth Linn Walker appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including thirteen counts of First Degree Rape and nine counts of Forcible Oral Sodomy, among others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one count related to Sexual Exploitation of a Child. One judge dissented. Walker was found guilty after a jury trial held in Oklahoma County. The judge sentenced him to a total of 300 years in prison. Walker raised several arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed that the court did not have the power to charge him because some of the accusations were too old and past the legal time limits for prosecution. The court decided that most of the charges were filed on time, but the one charge related to Sexual Exploitation of a Child was not. Walker also argued that he did not have enough time to prepare a proper defense and that he was not given a fair trial because some evidence was kept from him. However, the court found that the requirements for the charges were clear enough that he could adequately prepare for his defense. Regarding the evidence presented, Walkers’ lawyers contended that the witness testimonies should not have been enough to convict him. Nonetheless, the court ruled that the testimonies were credible and strong enough to support the convictions. In summary, the court upheld the majority of Walker's convictions but found that one charge was incorrectly handled because the legal time limit had passed. As a result, they reversed that specific charge while keeping the rest of the convictions intact.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-108, Ricky Dion Bruner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse two of his kidnapping convictions but affirmed the rest of his sentences. One judge dissented. Ricky Dion Bruner was found guilty of serious crimes, including robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and rape. A jury decided his punishment, giving him life in prison for several charges and various other sentences for the remaining counts. However, when Bruner appealed, he argued that some of these convictions shouldn't have happened because they violated rules against being tried for the same crime twice and that the evidence didn’t support some of the charges. The court examined these arguments. They agreed that Bruner shouldn’t have been convicted of both kidnapping and robbery in two cases because they happened during the same event and were too closely related. Therefore, they reversed those two kidnapping charges. However, they found enough evidence to support his other convictions, deciding that the jury could have reasonably reached those conclusions. Regarding his sentences, though they were harsh, the court determined they were not so extreme as to be unfair or against the law. So, they upheld most of his sentences but made sure that the two kidnapping convictions were dismissed and sent the matter back to the lower court for further actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1444, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd offense) and Driving While Privilege Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and ordered a new trial with proper instructions. The judgment for Driving While Privilege Suspended was affirmed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1048, Wendy Leann Underwood appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of the case: Wendy Leann Underwood was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine after she had committed other crimes before. The jury decided she should go to prison for 40 years. However, Wendy thought there were problems with how her case was handled, so she asked a higher court to review it. Wendy raised several points for why she believed her conviction and sentence should be changed: 1. She argued that the police search which found the drugs was not done properly, so the drugs should not have been used against her in court. She also said her lawyer did not fight this issue well enough. 2. She thought the trial did not properly explain to the jury that a person who testified against her was an accomplice and that there should have been supporting evidence for what that person said. 3. Wendy pointed out that many of her past criminal cases were actually part of the same situation, so they should not count as multiple offenses. 4. She believed her punishment should have been based on specific drug laws instead of general laws for repeat offenders. 5. Wendy thought she should get a lighter sentence because of new laws that help non-violent offenders. After looking carefully at everything, the court found that the police search was legal and that Wendy's lawyer did not make a mistake by not challenging it. They also decided that the person who testified against Wendy was not someone who required additional proof, so that was fine too. However, the court agreed that too many of Wendy's past convictions were counted, since many of them happened during the same event. Therefore, they decided to change her sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They felt that was fair based on the laws. Regarding the other issues raised by Wendy, the court determined that the punishment was appropriately based on the laws and that the new laws did not apply to her case. Thus, they kept her conviction but made her time in prison shorter. In conclusion, her conviction stood, but her time in prison was reduced to 30 years, with one judge thinking it should be even less.