Oklahoma Department of Corrections Archives

F-2021-1220

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 16, 2023
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-1220, Aaron Struble appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for resentencing to fifty years imprisonment, as originally assessed by the jury. One judge dissented. Struble was found guilty by a jury, which sentenced him to fifty years in prison. However, the trial court changed this sentence to life in prison, stating that the fifty years exceeded the maximum allowed. This was incorrect, as the fifty-year sentence was valid. The court acknowledged that the jury did not exceed the legal limits, and that the trial court’s change to life imprisonment was a mistake. Therefore, the case was sent back for proper sentencing. Struble also claimed that the prosecutor’s questions aimed at making the victim seem more sympathetic affected his right to a fair trial. However, since there were no objections during the trial to these questions, the court only looked for plain error. They determined that no major error had occurred in this matter. In summary, the court upheld the jury's conviction but pointed out the wrongfulness of the life sentence imposed by the trial court, sending the case back for the jury's original sentence to take effect.

F-2018-243

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-243, Ivan Luna-Gonzales appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved a serious incident where Luna-Gonzales attacked the mother of his child with a two-by-four, causing her significant injuries that required medical treatment. After the attack, he attempted to escape but was later found by the police. At the trial, Luna-Gonzales denied the assault and tried to claim that the victim had hurt herself. However, the evidence presented showed otherwise. A central issue in the appeal was whether Luna-Gonzales should receive credit for the time he spent in jail while awaiting his trial. He argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him this credit. The relevant law states that certain credits for time served apply but focus on time after sentencing—not while someone is waiting for their trial. The court explained that the statute referenced by Luna-Gonzales did not apply to the time he spent in jail before his judgment and sentence. Instead, it was meant to address the time inmates spend in jail after sentencing. The court emphasized that the trial judge has the discretion to decide on jail credit, which is not automatically given. In Luna-Gonzales’s case, the court found no fault with the trial court's decision. His longer time in jail was largely due to an immigration hold, which prevented his release. The court also noted that he did not cooperate with a required investigation before sentencing. Therefore, the court concluded that the trial court acted within its rights, and the appeal was denied. Ultimately, the judgment from the Payne County District Court was upheld, meaning Luna-Gonzales would serve his sentence without the additional jail credits he sought.

RE 2016-1019

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 23, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, Jerry Lynn Clemons appealed his conviction for Home Repair Fraud and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but directed the District Court to modify the orders so that the sentences would run concurrently. The dissenting opinion was not specified. Here's a simplified summary of what happened: Jerry Clemons was found guilty in two cases. He pleaded guilty to Home Repair Fraud in one case and robbery and property damage in another. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not go to prison if he followed rules and conditions of probation, like reporting to a probation officer and not changing his address without informing them. However, he did not follow these rules, which led the State to ask to revoke his suspended sentences. During a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Clemons' suspended sentences because he had failed to report as required and changed his address without telling his probation officer. Clemons argued that the State didn’t properly inform him about the reasons for the revocation and that they didn’t provide enough evidence to support their claims. He also said that the judge should not have revoked his sentence because the punishment was longer than what the law allowed for one of his charges. The court agreed with some of Clemons' points but stated that there was enough evidence to support the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. They found that he didn’t show how the judge made a wrong choice. However, they also recognized a mistake in how the sentences should be served. They ordered that all his sentences should run concurrently, meaning they would be served at the same time, rather than one after the other. In conclusion, Clemons' appeal was mostly not successful, but the court made important changes to ensure he would serve his time in a fair way according to the law.

RE 2016-1019

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 23, 2018
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-1019, Jerry Lynn Clemons appealed his conviction for Home Repair Fraud and Robbery By Force of Fear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but remanded the case to the District Court to modify its revocation orders to ensure that the sentences are served concurrently. One judge dissented. Clemons had pleaded guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences with specific rules to follow. However, he later failed to report to his probation officer and changed his address without notifying them, which led the State to apply for the revocation of his suspended sentences. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Clemons' suspended sentences. Clemons appealed the revocation, arguing that he did not receive proper notice of the allegations against him, the State did not provide enough evidence for revocation, and that he was sentenced incorrectly for his misdemeanor charge. The court found that the State did indeed provide enough evidence to revoke the sentences and noted that some charges had already been corrected in an amended ruling regarding the length of his sentence for the misdemeanor. Moreover, the court determined that the revocation orders did not align with the original sentence where counts were meant to be served concurrently. Therefore, they directed the District Court to correct this mistake. In conclusion, while the revocation of Clemons' suspended sentences was largely upheld, the court required modifications to ensure that his sentences would run concurrently as originally intended. This led to a decision that balanced the need for imposed penalties with the requirement for proper procedure.

J-2015-930

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 19, 2016
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-930, Z.M.M. appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape in the First Degree and seven counts of Lewd Acts with a Child under 16. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal as moot. No one dissented. The case started after a non-jury trial where the District Court of Cleveland County found Z.M.M. guilty. The judge sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison for each count. Later, a motion was filed by the state to transfer Z.M.M. to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Z.M.M. appealed, arguing that he should receive credit for the time he spent in the custody of the Office of Juvenile Affairs. The state's response to the appeal acknowledged that Z.M.M. should be given credit for that time. They provided an amended judgment that corrected this mistake. Since the main issue in Z.M.M.’s appeal had been resolved, the court suggested that the appeal was no longer necessary and could be dismissed. When the court asked Z.M.M. to respond, he did not object to the dismissal. Because there was no reason to continue the case, the appeal was officially dismissed, ending the court's involvement.

RE-2014-96

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 2, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-96, Blackwell appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Blackwell's suspended sentence but remanded the case to determine whether Blackwell is entitled to credit for time served as a Youthful Offender. One member of the court dissented. Blackwell was charged with First Degree Rape but later pleaded guilty to Child Abuse, and his sentence was delayed for five years on probation. After violating several terms of his probation, the state requested to revoke his suspended sentence. Blackwell claimed that the court did not have the right to revoke his sentence because he argued he was a youthful offender and that his adult conviction was improper. The court explained that the appeal focused on if the revocation was valid rather than the underlying conviction's correctness. Blackwell’s claims related to his conviction need to be addressed through a different legal process, not this appeal. The court also pointed out that issues about the correctness of laws mentioned in the documents were not within their authority to correct in this appeal. Additionally, Blackwell argued that his entire sentence revocation was too harsh. However, the court mentioned that breaking even a single probation rule is enough to revoke the suspended sentence. Finally, Blackwell maintained he should get credit for the days he spent under juvenile custody, and the court agreed to look into this matter further, sending the case back for clarification on this issue. They affirmed the revocation overall but allowed for the investigation into how much credit Blackwell should receive.

RE-2010-9

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 3, 2011
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-9, Steven B. Baker appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Resisting an Officer and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences, but recognized that Appellant was entitled to credit for time he had already served. One judge dissented.

M-2002-263

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 9, 2003
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2002-263, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the appellant, who we will call #1, had several legal issues. He was found guilty of different crimes related to driving, like drinking and driving and having an open container of alcohol in his car. Because of these convictions, he received various punishments, including jail time and fines. #1 claimed that he should not have been punished multiple times for what he did, saying it violated his rights. He also believed that the punishment he received was too harsh and did not follow the law. The court looked at everything and decided that #1's convictions were valid and should stay. However, they also believed that the sentences should be changed. Instead of the original punishments, they modified them to be a total of 60 days, and all fines and costs were put on hold. This was a fair decision considering the circumstances, and it meant that #1 would not have to serve as much time as originally decided. The decision seemed mostly agreed upon by the judges, but one judge thought differently and did not agree with the majority's opinion.

HC 2001-0440

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2002
Post category:HC

In OCCA case No. HC 2001-0440, the petitioner appealed his conviction for a sex offense. In a published decision, the court decided to grant extraordinary relief and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the petitioner, who was in prison for serious crimes, requested that he be allowed to receive good time credits that he felt were unfairly taken away. These credits could reduce his prison sentence. The problem arose from a requirement by the Department of Corrections (DOC) that inmates convicted of sex offenses must attend a treatment program. To join this program, inmates need to admit their guilt and provide personal information which could lead to further legal trouble. The petitioner argued that forcing him to admit to crimes he disagreed with violated his constitutional rights, specifically the right not to self-incriminate. Initially, the district court rejected the petitioner’s request for relief, stating he could not prove he would be released even if the credits were restored. The court found that the requirement to participate in the program was not only mandatory but also fair considering the law at that time. Moreover, the court dismissed the petitioner’s concern that these requirements amounted to unfair punishment, calling his claims frivolous. However, the petitioner took his complaint to the appeals court, where he argued that his situation was similar to another case from Kansas, where the courts agreed that inmates should not be forced to incriminate themselves in order to receive treatment. The appeals court acknowledged the need to further investigate this claim and ordered a hearing to gather more facts. During the hearing, the judge found that the DOC policy indeed put significant pressure on inmates to admit guilt, which violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The judge noted that the program's requirement to disclose past crimes, especially with potential consequences for refusing to do so, placed the inmates in a tough spot. The treatment primarily relied on inmates being honest about their past, which was considered coercive. Ultimately, the appeals court sided with the findings of the district court judge. They stated that while the DOC has a right to rehabilitate inmates, the requirement for them to confess and disclose could not override their constitutional protections. Therefore, they ruled in favor of the petitioner, calling for necessary changes in the DOC's policy to ensure that inmates’ rights were not violated. Thus, the case highlighted a significant legal question about balancing the need for rehabilitation with protecting individual rights. The decision pointed out the necessity for the DOC to adjust its programs to eliminate any requirement that might force an inmate to self-incriminate, while still letting them work toward rehabilitation.