Oklahoma Statutes

F-2015-1007

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-1007, Johnny Lee Ingram appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when Ingram was tried for two crimes: one for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and the other for Possession of a Firearm after prior convictions. The jury found him guilty of the first charge and not guilty of the second. He was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison based on the jury's recommendation. Ingram raised several points during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as not properly answering the jury's questions about the law, which led to confusion. The court agreed that the trial court's responses to the jury were not clear and this could have impacted the jury's decision. During the jury's deliberation, they asked about the meaning of certain instructions related to the case. The trial judge referred them to another instruction without clearly addressing their concerns. This left the jury confused about what constituted criminal intent and whether Ingram could be guilty based on his presence at the scene but not guilty of the other charge. The court emphasized that when jurors express confusion, it is crucial for judges to clearly resolve that confusion. Since the jury found Ingram guilty despite being confused, and considering that the instructions did not help clarify the legal standards, the appellate court concluded that Ingram was not given a fair trial. Thus, they overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial to ensure that the jury could properly consider the evidence laid out, without the confusion created by the previous instructions.

Continue ReadingF-2015-1007

C-2016-813

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-813, Derlin Lara appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Manslaughter in the First Degree and Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny in part and grant in part the appeal. One judge dissented. Derlin Lara was involved in a serious legal situation where he entered an Alford plea. This type of plea means that he did not admit guilt but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him. His charges included killing someone while driving under the influence, injuring another person while DUI, driving without a license, and transporting alcohol in the car. After he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced by a judge. The judge gave him a long sentence that meant he’d serve a lot of time in prison. Lara later wanted to take back his plea because he felt it wasn’t fair and that he didn't fully understand what he was doing. He argued that he was confused during the process, and that he had received poor advice from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at Lara's case and found several key points: 1. The judges believed that Lara's plea was actually made with understanding, even though he insisted that he did not understand everything. They noted that he had an interpreter during his hearings. 2. The court decided that Lara was not unfairly punished multiple times for the same actions. They explained that each charge had different parts and involved different victims, so they did not violate any laws regarding multiple punishments. 3. Lara’s claims about his lawyer not helping him were also rejected. The court found that Lara did not show that having a different lawyer would have changed his decision to plead guilty. 4. The sentence he received for one of the charges was too harsh according to the law. He was given a year in jail for driving without a license, but that punishment was higher than allowed. The court changed that sentence to a shorter one of just thirty days. Lastly, the court found that the amounts assessed for victim compensation and restitution were not properly explained during sentencing. Therefore, they canceled those amounts and decided that a hearing should be held to determine fair compensation. In summary, while the court denied most of Lara's requests, they did change one of his sentences and agreed that some financial penalties needed to be rethought.

Continue ReadingC-2016-813

F 2015-738

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-738, Richard Jerrel Jackson appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming the rest of the conviction. One judge dissented. Jackson was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, alprazolam, drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. His sentences included life imprisonment for the methamphetamine conviction and varying years for the other charges, all to be served consecutively. Jackson raised several arguments on appeal, mainly focusing on claims of double jeopardy, ineffective counsel, and evidence errors. The court found that it was wrong for Jackson to be convicted of possession of three drugs when they were all found together. The State agreed that this violated the rules against double punishment, leading to a reversal of the convictions related to the marijuana and alprazolam. For the other claims, including the effectiveness of Jackson's lawyer and various evidentiary issues, the court ruled largely in favor of the trial's findings, concluding that Jackson had not demonstrated any substantial harm or errors that affected his conviction significantly. This included affirming the use of prior felony convictions for sentencing enhancements and the handling of evidence during the trial. In summary, while the court dismissed two of the charges against Jackson, it upheld the others and determined that there were no significant errors in how the trial was conducted. The judges agreed on most aspects of the case, with one judge expressing a differing opinion on some points.

Continue ReadingF 2015-738

F 2015-121

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2015-121, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court, but vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Erica Lashon Harrison, who was accused of murder but was convicted of the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. The jury sentenced her to 25 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Harrison raised multiple issues on appeal. She argued that the state did not prove she was not acting in self-defense, that improper evidence was allowed, and that she did not have proper legal representation. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. They determined Harrison's claim of self-defense could not stand as there was not enough evidence to show she was in danger. The court noted that while some incorrect evidence was introduced, it did not affect the conviction. However, they decided that the sentence should be vacated and the case sent back for resentencing due to the improper character evidence brought up during the trial. The judges concluded that this error needed to be addressed, even if the earlier convictions were proper. The opinion recognized that although some arguments made by Harrison were valid, overall, the court found her conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence. The dissenting judges believed the error did not have a significant impact on the jury's decision. They argued that the sentence should not be changed since the evidence clearly proved guilt, even if procedural mistakes were made during the trial. Overall, the court upholds the conviction but sends the case back for a new decision on sentencing. The judges agreed on the main decision, while differing on whether the sentence change was necessary.

Continue ReadingF 2015-121

F-2014-931

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-931, Jeffrey Tallon appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed the sentences and ordered resentencing. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2014-931

C-2015-514

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-514, Hanks appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse and Malicious Injury to Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but remanded the case to determine if Hanks was mentally ill, which would affect the costs he was assessed. One judge dissented. Hanks had pleaded guilty to two counts of Domestic Abuse and one count of Malicious Injury to Property in a state court. The judge sentenced him to three months in jail for one charge and one year suspended for the other two. He was also required to pay fines and fees. After entering his plea, Hanks tried to withdraw it, claiming he did not understand what he was doing and that he had poor legal help. The court looked at whether Hanks had made his plea knowingly and voluntarily. They found that he understood what he was doing and that his mental issues did not prevent him from understanding his plea. The court also considered Hanks' claim that his lawyer did not help him properly during the process and found no evidence to support this. One important point in the decision focused on the costs Hanks had to pay related to his time in jail. The court noted that because he had a mental illness diagnosis, he might not have to pay these costs according to state law, which says that mentally ill people should be exempt from such fees. Because of this, the court sent the case back for further evaluation of Hanks' mental health status to see if he qualified for the exemption. Overall, the court upheld the original decision while allowing for further examination of Hanks' mental health to understand his financial obligations better.

Continue ReadingC-2015-514

RE-2014-810

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-810, Simpson appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Simpson's suspended sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Simpson had entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance in 2013 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence. His sentence was suspended as long as he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2014, the State accused him of violating these rules by committing a new offense of possession of a controlled substance. After a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Simpson’s suspended sentence and send him to jail for ten years. Simpson raised three main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the judge's decision to revoke the whole sentence was too harsh given his situation. He was struggling with drug addiction and believed that this should be taken into account. However, since he had previously had several felony convictions and had violated the terms of his probation, the court did not find this argument convincing. Second, Simpson claimed that the judge should not have added post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence after revoking it. The law states that this supervision is required only for those who are in prison after being sentenced, which was not the case for Simpson at the time of his original sentencing. Therefore, the court agreed with Simpson and removed the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision. Lastly, Simpson noted that he had already served ten days of his sentence before it was revoked and argued that the judge should not have ordered him to serve a full ten years in prison. The court acknowledged that the judge had indeed made an error by ordering a full ten years instead of the correct amount of nine years and 355 days, taking into account the time already served. In summary, the court upheld the revocation of Simpson’s suspended sentence, meaning he would go to prison. However, they corrected the total time he needed to serve to reflect the time he had already completed, and they took away the added supervision requirement after his prison term.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-810

F-2014-396

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-396, Jenkins appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Jenkins' 30-year sentence to 20 years. The decision was reached after the court found some errors occurred during the sentencing stage. Jenkins was convicted of breaking into a house with the intent to steal. He argued that the evidence did not prove he broke into the home. However, the court found that the doors being open and a window being broken were enough to show that he did break in. The court also determined that his behavior, like giving a false name and running away, suggested he intended to steal. Although the court found the conviction valid, they acknowledged that the prosecution made mistakes when discussing Jenkins' past criminal record, which prompted them to lower his sentence. The original sentence of 30 years was too harsh given the errors, leading the court to adjust it to 20 years. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction but modified the length of the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2014-396

F 2014-3

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-3, Edwin Jermaine Daniels appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the trial court's decisions but did vacate some of the fines associated with his sentences. One judge dissented. During the trial, Daniels was found guilty of multiple counts connected to violent crimes he committed with a co-defendant. The judge sentenced him to a total of many years in prison and imposed fines for each count. Daniels raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there were mistakes made during his trial that affected the fairness of the process. First, he claimed that the jury instructions were confusing and reduced the State’s burden to prove guilt. The court found that since there were no objections to the instructions during the trial, they did not affect the trial's result. Second, Daniels objected to being told the fines were mandatory, but the court found that this was also a mistake that the State admitted to; thus, the fines were removed for certain counts. He also claimed prosecutorial misconduct, arguing that comments made by the prosecutor during the trial unfairly influenced the jury. The court ruled that these comments did not significantly change the trial's outcome. Daniels further contended that he did not receive effective legal assistance. The court concluded that his lawyer's performance did not meet a standard of failure that would have changed the trial's result. In the end, while the court affirmed the convictions, it removed the fines that were wrongly imposed, ensuring that Daniel's rights were respected where the trial process fell short.

Continue ReadingF 2014-3

RE-2014-238

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-238, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance within the presence of a minor child, driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and failure to carry an insurance verification form. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-238

M-2013-918

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2013-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for direct contempt of court. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented, stating that while the court's warning was correct, the error in not allowing the appellant a chance to be heard was harmless because the appellant's sentence was later reduced.

Continue ReadingM-2013-918

C-2014-373

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.

Continue ReadingC-2014-373

F-2013-608

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-608, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple robbery and firearm-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but it reversed one conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2013-608

RE-2013-887

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-887, Collins appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Here's a brief summary of the case: Mark Stephen Collins was charged with having child pornography in 2010. He pleaded no contest and was given a five-year sentence, with a part of it suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve it in prison if he followed certain rules. However, in 2013, he broke those rules in several ways, like failing drug tests, not attending counseling, and refusing to meet with his supervising officer. Because of this, the state asked to make him serve his whole sentence. During a hearing about the violations, the judge decided it was fair to revoke his suspended sentence because Collins had admitted to breaking the rules. Collins argued that the judge was too harsh in revoking his sentence and that his actions were due to his drug addiction. The court explained that it doesn’t have to be proven that all rules were broken, just that at least one was. Collins also believed that the judge should not have added a year of post-imprisonment supervision after revoking his sentence since it would be a longer punishment than what was originally given. The law allows a judge to require supervision after imprisonment, but the court found that the judge was not allowed to impose it in this situation because it was not part of Collins’ original sentence. In the end, the court agreed with most of the judge's decision to revoke the sentence due to the violations but took away the additional year of supervision because it was not permitted. The case was sent back to the lower court to issue a new order that matched the court's ruling.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-887

RE-2012-0835

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-0835

RE-2012-1032

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1032, Jacob Keith Meyer appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for some charges but remanded for a lawful sentence on one count. One judge dissented. Jacob Keith Meyer had pleaded guilty to four different charges, including possession of methamphetamine and grand larceny, and was given a sentence of eight years in prison, with five years suspended. This meant he would only have to serve the first five years right away, while the rest would be postponed under probation rules. However, in 2012, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes, which led to a hearing to determine whether he truly violated the terms of his probation. During the hearing, it was shown that contraband, including marijuana, was found in a mattress from the jail cell where Meyer had been sleeping. The evidence suggested that Meyer was aware of the contraband since it was hidden inside the mattress he was lying on. Although Meyer challenged the evidence, stating that it wasn't sufficient to prove he violated probation, the court believed there was enough proof to support the revocation of his suspended sentences for three of the four charges. However, Meyer’s sentence for the first count in one of the cases was too long according to the law, so the court decided to send that particular charge back to the lower court to set a proper sentence. This decision meant that while Meyer would still have his other sentences revoked, the court would not enforce the invalid sentence associated with the larceny charge for the amount it exceeded legal limits. The court ultimately ruled that it had the authority to affirm some parts of Meyer’s case while needing to correct others where the law had been misapplied.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-1032

F-2012-170

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-170, Darnell Lamar Wright appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm, False Personation, and Assault while Masked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation but reversed the conviction for Assault while Masked. One judge dissented. The case began when Wright was tried by a jury and found guilty on multiple counts. The jury recommended a life sentence for the robbery charge, four years for false personation, and twenty years for assault while masked. The judge sentenced him accordingly, ordering the sentences to run one after another. Wright raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made errors that affected the fairness of his trial. One main concern was about how the court answered a jury question regarding parole eligibility for some of the charges. Wright claimed that the response was confusing and led to misunderstandings about how long he might serve. He also contended that there wasn't enough proof for the false personation charge, and he believed the law about that charge was unclear and unfair. Additionally, he argued that being convicted of both robbery with a firearm and assault while masked for the same act was not right, claiming it violated the principle against double jeopardy. Wright thought that evidence shown during the trial, which wasn’t directly related to him or the robbery, shouldn't have been allowed. He felt that this hurt his right to a fair trial. Lastly, he claimed that many small errors during the trial added up to deny him a fair chance. After reviewing Wright's arguments and the entire case, the court found that there was a valid point in Wright's argument about the assault charge. The court agreed that the attack with a weapon and the robbery were part of the same event and therefore should not both result in separate punishments. However, they found no substantial errors with the other appeals he raised. The judges stated that the original instructions the jury received were clear and that any confusion they had didn’t change the outcome of the trial. They also determined that the law concerning false personation was not vague and that the evidence against Wright was sufficient for the charges. Thus, while the court upheld the convictions for robbery and false personation, they overturned Wright’s conviction for assault while masked, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. The decision meant that Wright would have to serve time for the robbery and false personation but not for the assault.

Continue ReadingF-2012-170

F-2012-914

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-914, Bradley Joe Raymond appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor, and Domestic Abuse by Strangulation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one count. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty of three serious crimes connected with domestic violence. After the trial in McCurtain County, the jury decided that he should spend life in prison for each count. However, the judge decided that Raymond's sentences for two of the counts would be served at the same time, while the sentence for the third count would be served after the first two. Raymond's appeal included questions about whether the jury received the correct instructions regarding his possible punishments given his past crimes and whether certain evidence presented during the trial might have harmed him. The court found that the jury instructions relating to his first and third counts were correct but that there was a mistake concerning the instructions for the second count of Domestic Abuse in the Presence of a Minor. For the second count, the law at the time stated that certain punishments were not allowed if the crime was a second or later offense. Since the sentencing guidelines given to the jury were incorrect, Raymond’s sentence for that count was changed from life in prison to five years in prison, while the sentences for the other counts remained the same. The appeals court also addressed a concern that some evidence presented during the trial might have caused unfair prejudice to Raymond. After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that it did not find any significant error as it did not affect the overall outcome of the case. The court ultimately confirmed the convictions for the first and third counts and changed the sentence for the second count, ensuring that Raymond would serve five years instead of life for that specific offense.

Continue ReadingF-2012-914

F-2012-226

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-226, Johnny Sanders O'Neal, IV appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary, Endangering Others While Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs, and Driving While License Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm O'Neal's convictions but modified his sentences, reducing them from 20 years to 15 years for Count 1 (Burglary) and from 25 years to 20 years for Count 2 (Endangering Others), both to be served at the same time. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2012-226

F-2011-693

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-693, Michael Wayne Dorsey appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Dorsey's conviction and his sentences but vacated the $5,000 victim compensation assessment set by the trial court. One member of the court dissented. Dorsey was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and shooting with intent to kill. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years for manslaughter and five years for the shooting charge, which would be served one after the other. Dorsey argued that he should have been allowed to use self-defense as a reason for both charges, but the court found that the instructions given to the jury were correct. Dorsey also claimed that the trial judge made an error with jury instructions regarding self-defense and intoxication, but the court disagreed. He further asserted that his lawyer was not effective because there was no objection raised to those jury instructions, but the court ruled that there was nothing wrong with the instructions in the first place. Lastly, Dorsey objected to the judge imposing the victim compensation amount without considering several important factors. The court agreed that the judge did not properly assess the situation and sent the case back to the trial court for a new decision on the compensation amount. Thus, the main outcome was that while Dorsey's conviction was upheld, the court required a reconsideration of the victim compensation assessment based on certain statutory factors outlined in the law.

Continue ReadingF-2011-693

RE-2011-562

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-562, Jack Joseph Taylor appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of Taylor, reversing the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Taylor entered a guilty plea in 2001 to arson and conspiracy to commit arson, leading to a ten-year sentence, most of which was suspended under probation conditions. In 2011, the State accused him of violating his probation due to a new charge of child abuse. A different judge held the hearing, during which he checked evidence from Taylor's new case and found that Taylor had violated his probation. However, he postponed deciding on the punishment until after the new trial. The new trial resulted in a conviction for child abuse, with a ten-year sentence. The judge then revoked Taylor's suspended sentence, which led him to appeal. Taylor argued that he did not receive a fair hearing because the judge presiding over the revocation was previously involved as a prosecutor in his original case. The court ruled that it is important for judges to be neutral and not have prior involvement in cases they are deciding. The court found that the judge should have recused himself due to his past connection with Taylor's case, stating that a decisionmaker must be fair and detached according to legal standards. Ultimately, the court determined that the revocation hearing was not handled correctly and ordered a new hearing before a different judge.

Continue ReadingRE-2011-562

S-2012-166

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-166, Moises Gonzales-Tello appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Heroin. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling to suppress evidence gathered during a traffic stop. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma appealed a decision made by the district court. This decision was based on a traffic stop where law enforcement officers discovered evidence of a crime, but the evidence was later deemed inadmissible. The district court ruled that the stop had taken too long and that the officer did not have a proper reason to keep the suspect detained after the initial reason for the stop was completed. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed several unusual things that made him suspicious. He called for a drug-sniffing dog to come to the scene. Even though the officer asked for permission to search the car, he did not actually let the suspect leave and did not return his driver's license or paperwork. The dog arrived about 30 minutes after the stop began, but did not find anything. After the dog didn't indicate any signs of drugs, the officer conducted his own search and found a significant amount of heroin. The court looked closely at whether the officer had enough reason to continue holding the suspect after the initial reason for the traffic stop was accomplished. While the State argued that the officer's actions were justified, the court explained that to search a car without a warrant, an officer must have either permission from the owner or a strong reason to believe the car contains evidence of a crime. In this case, the dog did not find anything and the officer did not get enough proof that would justify a search. If there had been clear consent from the suspect for the search, the situation might have been different. However, the way the officer asked for consent made it seem as if the suspect did not truly have a choice. When the court reviewed the case, they found that the district court made a reasonable decision in ruling that the initial detention was too long and that the search was not justified. The State also argued against using the Exclusionary Rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The court did not agree with the State on this argument, as they did not provide enough support for their claim. In summary, the court decided to maintain the district court's order to suppress the evidence found during the traffic stop, agreeing that the officers did not follow the correct procedures.

Continue ReadingS-2012-166

S-2012-194

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-194, Campbell appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the case, meaning Campbell's charges were dropped. No one dissented. Here’s a summary of what happened: James Monroe Campbell was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. Before the trial began, he asked the court to dismiss the case by filing a request called a Motion to Dismiss. During a hearing before the trial, the judge decided that the evidence against Campbell should not be used, and this meant the case was dismissed. The State of Oklahoma, unhappy with this decision, decided to appeal, which means they wanted another court to review what happened. They filed their appeal based on certain laws that say they have the right to challenge the dismissal of cases when it involves important evidence being excluded. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they claimed the judge made a mistake by dismissing Campbell's case because he believed Campbell broke the law by not staying entirely in one lane while driving. Second, they argued the judge was wrong because the police officer had a good reason to stop Campbell’s car in the first place. To decide if the original judge made a mistake, the court looked at whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to pull Campbell over. A reasonable suspicion is a legal term meaning the officer had a good reason to believe a law was possibly being broken. The officer in this case stated that he stopped Campbell because he saw Campbell's car touch the line marking the lane. However, when the judge looked closely at the evidence, including a video of the incident, she thought that Campbell was driving pretty straight and did not see enough evidence to support the claim that he was breaking any laws. The judge also mentioned that the officer’s concerns did not seem strong enough to justify the stop. Therefore, she decided to dismiss the case because there was not enough evidence to support stopping Campbell's car. When reviewing the situation, the appeals court sided with the original judge's decision and agreed that there was no abuse of discretion, meaning they believed she made the correct choice based on the information available. The court also stated that since the issue of Campbell possibly driving under the influence wasn't raised during the earlier hearing, they could not consider that during the appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to suppress evidence and dismissed the charges against Campbell, which was a win for him.

Continue ReadingS-2012-194

F 2011-858

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2011-858, Jesus Ceniceros, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug trafficking and distribution. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand two of the convictions while affirming the rest. One judge dissented. Jesus Ceniceros was tried and found guilty of eight counts involving illegal drug activities in Pottawatomie County. His charges included serious crimes like aggravated trafficking in illegal drugs, trafficking in illegal drugs, and unlawful distribution of methamphetamine. For these convictions, he received long sentences, some requiring him to serve 85% before being eligible for parole, along with hefty fines. After his trial, Ceniceros raised some points in his appeal. First, he argued that the search warrant used for police to search his home did not follow the rules set by Oklahoma law. However, the court found the warrant was good enough to let the police find the place to search without needing any extra information. Next, Ceniceros suggested that the trafficking and distribution counts should combine into one charge. He claimed he was being punished twice for the same act. The court agreed that this was a mistake and that it wasn’t fair to punish him separately for those charges because they were related to the same crime. Lastly, Ceniceros claimed that the sentences he received were too harsh. The court examined this but found the punishments were acceptable under the law and did not seem overly severe. As a result of these discussions, the court decided to throw out two of his convictions for distribution of controlled dangerous substances but kept the other convictions. The court concluded that his sentences were appropriate and upheld them, stating that the trial judge acted correctly by making the sentences run one after the other instead of at the same time. This summary highlights the main points of the case and the court’s final decisions.

Continue ReadingF 2011-858

F-2010-1237

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-1237, James Lee Gilford, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked or disguised, and first-degree burglary, each after prior felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault while masked or disguised but affirmed his convictions for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of one of the convictions. The case began when Gilford was tried by a jury and convicted on several counts. The jury decided that Gilford should spend life in prison for each count, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Gilford appealed, raising several issues, including concerns about jury selection, due process, multiple punishments for the same act, and inaccuracies in his judgment and sentence. 1. **Jury Selection**: Gilford argued that the prosecutors unfairly removed minority jurors. The court found that the prosecutor had provided good reasons for these removals, and Gilford did not prove any discrimination occurred in the jury selection process. 2. **Due Process Rights**: Gilford claimed he was denied a fair trial because the state didn't share some important information about a key witness. However, the court determined that this did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. 3. **Multiple Punishments**: The court analyzed whether Gilford's convictions were for separate crimes or for just one act. Gilford's robbery, where he stabbed the victim and took his things, was connected to assaults he committed during that event. The court decided that the assault and battery charges arose from the same action as the robbery and therefore fell under laws that prevent punishing someone twice for the same act. 4. **Judgment and Sentence Issues**: Since the court reversed the assault charges because they were multiple punishments for a single act, they found that any inaccuracies in the sentencing for those charges didn't matter anymore. The final decision was that Gilford's sentences for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary would stay, while the court ordered the other two charges to be dismissed due to legal protections against multiple punishments. There was a dissenting opinion by one judge who felt that the conviction for assault while masked should not have been reversed.

Continue ReadingF-2010-1237