In OCCA case No. F-2012-499, Richard Harold Bazemore appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child (Counts I-VI) and Lewd or Indecent Acts With a Child Under Sixteen (Count VIII). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the presentence investigation fee to $250.00. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-112, Gene Freeman Price appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Freeman Price was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intention of committing a crime. He was given a sentence of twelve years in prison. However, Price argued that he did not fully understand his rights before he decided to represent himself in court instead of having a lawyer help him. The court looked closely at the case. They believed the trial court did not do a good job explaining to Price the risks of going to court alone without a lawyer. This meant that Price could not have truly given up his right to a lawyer because he didn't really understand what that meant. The judges decided that because of this mistake, Price's right to have a lawyer was violated. Since this was such a serious error and affected the whole case, the court said they could not ignore it. They ruled that the earlier decision needed to be thrown out, and Price should get a new trial where he could have a lawyer help him.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-671, Cruz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Cruz was found guilty because he used a knife to attack another person. The main question was whether he acted in self-defense. The jury believed that Cruz was the aggressor and that the victim was unarmed when he was attacked. Cruz said he acted in self-defense, but the court found that the jury had enough evidence to support their decision that he did not qualify for this defense. Cruz raised several issues in his appeal. Firstly, he claimed that the evidence was not strong enough to convict him. However, the court said that the evidence was enough for a reasonable person to conclude that he was guilty without self-defense. Next, Cruz said there was a problem with how the jury was chosen and that it affected the trial. The court disagreed and said that the trial judge acted correctly when explaining how long the trial would take. Cruz also mentioned that he should have been credited for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court agreed that this was an important point but noted there was no written record of this credit. However, they decided the case should be sent back to the lower court to correct this and make sure he received proper credit. He argued about the restitution order, saying the court should have determined how much he needed to pay. The court stated there was no error because a hearing was scheduled to decide on restitution after he was released. Cruz felt that the sentence he received was too harsh and that the fee for his attorney was excessive. The court ruled that the sentence was fair considering the crime and that the attorney fee would be reviewed later to check if it needed to be lowered. Lastly, Cruz claimed all the mistakes added up to mean he did not have a fair trial. The court ruled there were no real errors, so this point did not apply. In conclusion, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence but ordered that Cruz's sentence be revised to include credit for time served.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-656, Jason Kenneth Dimaggio, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including robbery and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one conviction but affirmed all others. One judge dissented. Jason Dimaggio was found guilty of several offenses that occurred during a violent crime spree in two Oklahoma counties. His crimes included robbery with a weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other charges. He received lengthy sentences, with some of them being consecutive, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, Dimaggio argued that he didn't get a fair trial for several reasons. He claimed that some evidence about other crimes should not have been allowed, and that he was denied the chance to confront witnesses due to hearsay evidence. His main points included: 1. Other-crimes evidence was presented improperly. 2. Hearsay evidence was used against him. 3. The trial court allowed irrelevant photographs of him to be shown to the jurors. 4. There was misconduct by the prosecutor. 5. The jury was incorrectly instructed about his flight after crimes. 6. The combined effect of errors denied him a fair trial. 7. The court should not have ordered his sentences to be served consecutively. 8. He was unfairly punished multiple times for the same conduct. 9. The evidence did not support some of his convictions. The court reviewed all these claims and found that the evidence about earlier crimes was acceptable as part of the overall story of the events. Although there were issues with some evidence, like the photographs, the judges felt the impact on the trial was not significant enough to change the outcome because there was strong evidence against Dimaggio from witnesses. Regarding the prosecutor’s comments during the trial, the court noted that errors weren’t severe enough to matter because they were not objected to at the time. They also agreed that the jury's instruction about flight wasn't appropriate, but again, it didn't affect the strong evidence of guilt. Dimaggio’s claims of double jeopardy (being punished twice for the same crime) regarding his convictions for assault and fleeing from a police officer were not supported. The court ruled that the crimes were separate and had different elements. However, the court did agree that he should not be convicted for possession of a controlled substance because it was part of the robbery and should not have been counted as a separate crime. Thus, that conviction was reversed. In conclusion, except for the reversed conviction, the court upheld Dimaggio's multiple sentences and affirmed the trial court’s decisions in all other respects.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-52, #Green appealed his conviction for #Child Neglect, Child Abuse, and Possession of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on Green's motion to withdraw his plea. #No one dissented. Terry Lamar Green was in trouble for neglecting and abusing a child, and for having marijuana. After he admitted to these crimes, he was given a very long prison sentence. He was supposed to spend life in prison for the neglect and abuse charges, and he also got some additional time for the marijuana possession. Green felt upset and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He asked to take back his guilty plea, which is called a motion to withdraw his plea, but his lawyer wanted to quit the case because they had some disagreement about what was going on. However, the judge said the lawyer couldn’t leave. Green believed this was unfair since he really needed a lawyer who didn't have a conflict of interest to help him with the hearing about changing his plea. The court looked into Green’s arguments carefully. It noted that the lawyer had a real problem because she was worried about possibly being a witness in the case. This could affect how she represented Green, and the judge didn't seem to understand that her interests were different from Green's at that moment. This meant that Green did not get the help he truly needed when he most needed it. Because of these issues, the court decided that Green was entitled to have a different lawyer represent him at the hearing about withdrawing his plea. They needed to make sure he had someone who could defend him without any problems. The court then decided that they needed to send the case back so that Green could have a new hearing with a lawyer who didn’t have a conflict. They also noticed that there was a missing document related to his marijuana charge, so they ordered that to be fixed too. Overall, the court recognized that Green had rights that were not properly protected, so they made the decision to help him have another chance to argue his case.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-714, the petitioner appealed his conviction for larceny of merchandise from a retailer and resisting an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for larceny but to reverse and remand the conviction for resisting an officer. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Darrell Odell Golden was charged with stealing merchandise from a department store and for resisting arrest after being approached by law enforcement. Golden stole items valued over $1,000, and when police tried to arrest him, he ran away. Golden pled guilty to both charges but later wanted to withdraw his plea, arguing that he was confused about his possible sentence and that he did not understand the charges properly. The court found that while Golden’s plea for larceny was valid, his plea for resisting an officer lacked evidence of the required force or violence, which is necessary to support that charge. Therefore, the court allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea for that particular count but upheld his conviction for larceny. Ultimately, the decision meant that Golden will keep his larceny conviction and its associated penalties, but the charge of resisting an officer was overturned, allowing for further legal proceedings on that matter.
In OCCA case No. F 2010-1128, Chad Allen Turner appealed his conviction for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and conspiracy to traffic a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and affirm the conviction for conspiracy to traffic. One judge dissented. Chad Allen Turner was found guilty of two crimes involving methamphetamine. He was given two years in prison for one crime and fifteen years for the other, and he was ordered to serve these sentences one after the other. Turner believed his convictions were not fair for several reasons. He argued that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty of conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine. He also claimed that the prosecutors did not properly show how they handled the evidence of the drugs. Additionally, he felt the prosecutors did not tell the jury about any deals made with witnesses and made mistakes during their closing arguments that hurt his chance for a fair trial. Turner raised several other points about why he thought he should not have been convicted. He argued that he was punished twice for the same crime and that he didn’t get enough notice about the charges against him. He also believed he should have been given instructions about a lesser charge related to the crime. He felt that the court made mistakes during the trial that made it hard for him to get a fair outcome. After looking at all the facts and arguments presented, the court decided that there wasn’t enough proof to uphold one of the conspiracy charges against Turner. They agreed with his argument that there was only one conspiracy agreement, which made it unfair to convict him of both conspiracy charges. Therefore, the court reversed the conviction linked to that charge. However, the court found that there was enough evidence for the conspiracy to traffic charge, and they affirmed that conviction. In the end, the court told Turner that one of the charges against him was overturned and the other charge stood. The dissenting judge had a different opinion about some parts of the decision. In summary, the court agreed to reverse one of Turner's convictions but kept the other, affecting the total time he would spend in prison.
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-2010-547, Berry appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold Berry's conviction for Lewd Molestation but reversed his conviction for Kidnapping. One member of the court dissented. Berry was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation and Kidnapping in Tulsa County. The case involved a two-year-old girl who wandered away from her home and encountered Berry. Witnesses saw Berry beckon the girl to his truck, pick her up, and drive away. Police later found the girl in Berry's truck, seemingly unresponsive, although no definitive physical harm or evidence of sexual assault was found. Berry argued that he should not have been punished for both crimes because the acts of Lewd Molestation and Kidnapping were connected and arose from the same action. The court agreed that the crimes involved the same incident when Berry took the girl, thus violating Oklahoma's law against double punishment. They affirmed the Lewd Molestation conviction but reversed the Kidnapping conviction, indicating the offenses were inseparable in this instance. One judge disagreed, believing that the Kidnapping and Lewd Molestation were distinct, separate crimes, and thus both should stand.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-940, Gregory Davis Wabaunsee appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including two counts of Second Degree Burglary and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one of the firearm charges due to a double punishment issue, but they upheld the other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1113, Rodney Gene Cullins appealed his conviction for several drug-related crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his fine but otherwise affirmed the trial court's judgment and denied his request to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge dissented. Rodney Cullins was convicted of multiple felonies related to drugs, including manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. He entered a plea agreement that included participating in a Drug Court program, which he did not successfully complete, leading the state to seek his removal from the program. As a result, he was sentenced to life in prison and given various fines. Cullins later tried to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming double jeopardy (being punished for the same crime twice), receiving incorrect information about his sentencing, and arguing that his sentences were too harsh. However, the court found that he had not raised some of these issues during his trial, making it difficult for them to review his case fully. For one issue regarding a fine that was too high, the court agreed and lowered the fine on one of his charges from $50,000 to $10,000. The court maintained that all other aspects of his sentence would remain as originally imposed. In summary, while Cullins had some success in reducing his fines, the bulk of his appeal was not successful, and his prison terms remained intact.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-1123, Chance appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Chance was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intent to commit a crime and also had illegal drug items in his possession. The jury decided his punishment: thirty years in prison for the burglary and one year in jail for the drug paraphernalia. The court added that these sentences would be served at the same time. Chance raised a few complaints. He argued the prosecutor made improper statements about probation and parole during the trial, which made it unfair for him. He also believed the procedures and instructions during his drug paraphernalia case were wrong and that the court didn't follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay back to the victim for restitution. After looking closely at the case, the court agreed that there were mistakes made. The court recognized that the references to probation and parole might have affected the jury's decision on sentencing. Because of this, they lowered Chance's prison sentence from thirty years to twenty years. For the drug paraphernalia charge, the jury was told the wrong information regarding potential punishment, which the court found to be a serious error. They changed Chance's sentence for this from one year in jail to thirty days instead. Lastly, the court agreed with Chance's complaint about the restitution process. They decided the original amount couldn’t stand and ordered the lower court to re-evaluate how much he needed to pay the victim. In summary, the court kept the guilty verdict but changed the length of Chance's sentences and ordered a new hearing for restitution amounts. One judge felt that the original prison sentence should not have been changed since there was no clear evidence of unfairness affecting the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1142, the Appellant appealed his conviction for seven counts, including five counts of Knowingly Concealing/Receiving Stolen Property, First-Degree Arson, and Second-Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse all of the Appellant's convictions due to several errors during the trial. The court identified that the Appellant was denied access to his preliminary hearing transcripts, which affected his ability for a fair trial. The court also noted there was improper joinder of cases, leading to the admission of prejudicial evidence that may have influenced the jury's verdict. One judge dissented regarding the conclusion that the errors warranted a complete reversal of the convictions, arguing that the first error was harmless and could be remedied with a sentence modification.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1033, Shawn Leroy Harger appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Harger's petition for a writ of certiorari. The judgment and sentence of the district court were reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new hearing on Harger's application to withdraw his plea with separate, conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-749, Waymond George Morrison appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) with Intent to Distribute, Driving a Motor Vehicle Without a License, Distribution of CDS, and Possession of Proceeds from drug-related activities. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for three counts while reversing one count related to possession of proceeds, ordering that it be dismissed. One justice dissented. Morrison faced several serious charges related to drugs and was sentenced to a total of 100 years in prison for the most severe charges, along with some fines. During his trial, he argued that his rights to due process were violated, that there was an improper handling of testimony, and that he faced double punishment for his actions. The court evaluated his claims: 1. The first issue was whether Morrison’s rights were violated when the court didn’t allow certain testimony. The court decided that the excluded testimony wasn't relevant to the case, so his rights were not infringed upon. 2. The second concern was about the trial being split into two parts (bifurcated). The court ruled that this was a correct decision and that it did not abuse its discretion. 3. Morrison also contended that testimony from a rebuttal witness should not have been permitted. The court found that this was appropriate because the rebuttal witness provided necessary clarifications to previous testimonies. 4. Regarding the issue of double punishment, the court explained that Morrison’s possession and distribution charges were based on separate actions—one for having cocaine and one for selling it. However, his conviction for possession of proceeds was tied to the same act of selling cocaine, so that particular conviction was reversed. 5. The sufficiency of the evidence against him was also questioned. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to reasonably convict Morrison of intent to distribute due to the drugs found in his car shortly after a sale. 6. Lastly, Morrison felt his sentence was excessively harsh. The court did not agree, noting that due to his previous criminal record, the sentence was justifiable. In conclusion, the court upheld the majority of Morrison's convictions and sentences, significantly addressing various legal arguments made by him during the appeal process.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-998, Frye appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child, Procurement of Child for Pornography, and Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Frye's convictions and sentences but ordered the removal of a $1,000 fine that was imposed without jury authorization. One judge dissented regarding the trial court's handling of voir dire questioning.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1110, Twilia Renae Wise appealed her conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her Judgment and Sentence and remand the case for a new trial based on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented, believing that the case should not be remanded for a new trial without further review.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-288, Gary Don Thompson II appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, meaning Thompson's conviction was thrown out. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Okmulgee County. The jury recommended that Thompson get ten years in prison and pay a $5,000 fine. Thompson's lawyers argued that the evidence used to convict him was obtained in a way that was not allowed by law. Before the trial, they asked the court to suppress, or not allow, the evidence. The court denied this request based on what the police officer said at an earlier hearing. However, during the trial, the officer explained what happened in detail, and his story was different from what he said before. The officer admitted that he did not have any reason to think Thompson was doing anything wrong. He only saw Thompson walking at night in an area he thought had a lot of crime. At trial, the officer said that Thompson threw away a bag of marijuana after the officer told him to stop. The court looked at this new information and believed that Thompson was stopped by the police without enough reason to do so. Because of this, the court said that Thompson's actions of throwing away the marijuana were the result of being detained improperly, and they found that the previous court had made a mistake in not allowing the evidence to be suppressed. The final decision was to reverse Thompson's conviction and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-149, Kenneth Clark Knox appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the three years of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case began when Kenneth Knox was tried by a jury and found guilty of Sexual Battery after having previously been convicted of more than two felonies. The jury recommended a punishment of four years in prison, which the trial court imposed, along with three years of supervision after prison. Knox appealed for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence presented by the State was not strong enough to prove that he committed sexual battery. He believed that the conviction should be overturned and the charges dismissed. However, the court found that, when looking at the evidence favorably for the State, there was enough proof for a reasonable jury to conclude that Knox touched the victim inappropriately. Second, Knox claimed that the law regarding post-imprisonment supervision was not in effect when he committed the crime, so the three years of supervision imposed by the court should be canceled. The court agreed, explaining that the law was only effective after the crime took place, meaning Knox should not have been sentenced to post-prison supervision under that law. Lastly, Knox suggested that if the court did not agree with his other points, they should fix the written judgment to match what the judge said during sentencing. The court decided that they would vacate the supervision requirement and instructed the lower court to correct the judgment to show that Knox's sentence was only four years in prison. In conclusion, while Knox's conviction remained, the court removed the extra three years of supervision from his sentence. The case has been sent back to the lower court to make the necessary changes to the judgment.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery by strangulation and threatening to perform an act of violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the second count but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the first count. One judge dissented. James Duane Dorsey, Jr. entered a guilty plea for domestic assault and battery and no contest for threatening to perform an act of violence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended, and 90 days in county jail for the first count. For the second count, he received a suspended one-year jail sentence, to run at the same time as the first count. Dorsey later tried to withdraw his pleas, but the trial court did not allow it. In his appeal, Dorsey argued two main points. First, he claimed his plea for the first charge was not valid because the court did not show enough facts to justify the plea. Second, he said the sentence for the second count was too long and needed to be changed. The court looked carefully at the entire case record before making a decision. They found that for the first point, Dorsey did not mention the lack of facts during his earlier motions, which means it was not properly brought up in his appeal. The court determined that, under their rules, they could only check for serious mistakes, not just any errors. They confirmed that Dorsey's pleas were made knowingly and that the court had the right to accept them. Dorsey had admitted to the crime of strangulation during his hearing, and the state had evidence to support the charge of threatening violence. For the second point, the court agreed with Dorsey that his sentence for the second count was too long. They noted that the maximum sentence for that misdemeanor should be six months. Therefore, they adjusted the sentence down to six months, but still suspended it. Overall, the court accepted Dorsey’s pleas and affirmed his conviction for the first count. However, they changed his sentence for the second count to fit within legal limits. One judge disagreed with how the court reviewed the first point but agreed with the rest of the decision.
In OCCA case No. S-2010-540, Cavner appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the district court's decision to suppress the evidence. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged Cavner with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. He argued that the traffic stop was not justified because there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The district court agreed to suppress the evidence but did not dismiss the case entirely. On appeal, the State argued that the district court made an error by suppressing the evidence. When reviewing these kinds of cases, the court looks at the facts presented and defers to the trial court's findings unless something is clearly wrong. It was nighttime when Deputy Yarber observed a vehicle in the parking lot of an abandoned grocery store. He noted that the car left the parking lot in a lawful manner as he and another officer approached. The deputy did not mention any specific criminal activity and had no reason to believe something illegal was happening. Another officer had previously looked into possible drug activity in the area, but that had not been reported recently. In such situations, officers are allowed to check on people they find in unusual circumstances. However, since the vehicle drove away from the parking lot before Yarber could approach, he needed to stop it on a highway, which changes the situation from a simple question into a detention, known as a traffic stop. The law requires that a traffic stop must be supported by something more than just a hunch or general suspicion. The court explained that deputies must have reasonable suspicion to make a legal traffic stop. They look for specific facts suggesting that a crime may be occurring, which was not the case here. The deputy did not have enough evidence or reasons to suspect that Cavner was committing a crime simply because he was in the parking lot of an abandoned store late at night. The court referenced a prior case to support its decision, comparing the circumstances to those in a previous ruling where a stop was also deemed unlawful due to lack of reasonable suspicion. In Cavner's case, the court ruled that the officers did not have enough evidence to justify the traffic stop. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's order to suppress the evidence gathered during the stop, meaning the evidence could not be used against Cavner. The decision highlighted the importance of having proper legal grounds for police actions, ensuring that citizens' rights are protected under the law.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-287, Juan Carlos Hernandez-Montanez appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Second Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his ten-year sentence for Second Degree Burglary to seven years but upheld the rest of the convictions and sentencing. One judge dissented regarding the review process. Hernandez-Montanez was initially charged with many serious crimes but agreed to a plea deal that changed the charges. He pleaded guilty to the amended counts and was sentenced to serve a total of time in prison and jail. After a short period, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, claiming it wasn't done correctly. The case was reviewed, and the court looked closely at the reasons Hernandez-Montanez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea. He said his ten-year sentence was too long and that the court did not fully check if he understood his guilty plea. He also claimed he did not get proper help from his attorney during the process. After reviewing everything, the court found that Hernandez-Montanez's arguments did not hold up. They decided that there was a good reason to accept his guilty plea and that he understood what he was doing. The court modified one part of his sentence but left the rest as it was. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about some legal processes.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-944, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act did not apply to the defendant. A dissenting opinion was not stated. The case involved the defendant, who was previously charged under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The key question was whether later amendments to the law should apply to him or not, given that he had entered a plea in 1999 and had complied with the previous legal conditions. The magistrate in the lower court determined that the law changes would be unfair to apply retroactively in the defendant's case. The court explained that new laws usually apply to future actions unless they are explicitly stated to have retroactive effects. They found no clear indication in the legislature's changes to imply that the new requirements should apply to those who had already been sentenced under the old rules. The court confirmed that since the amendments would change the defendant's obligations significantly, these substantive changes should not apply to him. As a result, the decision maintained that the lower court's refusal to move forward on the charge against the defendant could stand, with the matter being sent back to the District Court for any further actions needed, while affirming that the defendant was correct in his assertion that the recent amendments did not apply to him.