Parole Eligibility

F-2014-942

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-942, Eric Josiah Mardis appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen and Engaging in a Pattern of Criminal Offenses in Two or More Counties. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mardis was found guilty by a jury for multiple counts of lewd acts against a child and received very harsh sentences of 100 years for each of the first five counts and 2 years for the last count, which were to be served one after the other. He questioned the fairness of his trial by stating that the prosecution used information from his mental health records improperly. The court found that while the trial had some errors, they did not significantly harm the fairness of the trial regarding his guilt. However, these errors did affect how the jury decided on his punishment, leading to a modification of those sentences. In his appeal, Mardis raised several concerns, including that his long sentences were cruel and unusual since he was a minor when he committed the offenses. The court noted that he was not given a sentence of life without parole and would have a chance for parole after serving part of his sentence. This meant he had an opportunity for early release based on his behavior and rehabilitation. Mardis also questioned whether there was enough evidence to support his convictions and claimed that his right to confront witnesses was violated when the testimony of a physician’s associate was allowed. The court rejected these claims, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision and that the use of some statements for medical diagnosis purposes did not violate his rights. In summary, his convictions were upheld, but due to the mistakes made during the trial, Mardis's sentences were reduced to 50 years each for the first five counts. This means he would serve a total of 52 years with the last count included. The final decision reflected the need for a fair process while recognizing the severe nature of the crimes committed. Mardis's appeal was partially successful, leading to a lesser punishment than initially given, which was seen as a fair outcome given the legal issues at hand.

Continue ReadingF-2014-942

F-2014-580

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-580, Christopher M. Turner appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences but vacate the Victims Compensation Assessment and remand the case for a full hearing to properly consider the required factors related to the assessment. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2014-580

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-2012-545

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-545, Jimmy Dale Stone appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand his convictions for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy was found guilty by a jury on several counts of lewd molestation involving children. He was sentenced to a total of eight years in prison, with some of the sentences running one after the other and one running at the same time as another. He had to serve a majority of his sentence before he could be considered for parole. On appeal, Jimmy raised several important points. He argued that the judge didn’t explain all the important parts of the law about lewd molestation to the jury. He believed the evidence used against him wasn’t enough to prove he had done anything wrong. He claimed that the jury was influenced by people who talked about the case before it started. He felt he was not given a fair chance at trial because of things the prosecutor said about the victims. Also, he said he should have had money for an expert witness to help prove his side. He believed that presenting other crimes as evidence was unfair. Finally, he argued that all these mistakes together affected the fairness of his trial. The main issue that the court found was a big mistake in how the jury was instructed about the law. There are specific things that must be proven to convict someone of lewd molestation. To be found guilty, it must be shown that the defendant knowingly did something wrong and that they intended to do it. This was not explained correctly to the jury during the trial. The court found that some parts of the legal instructions given did not include important elements needed to prove the case. Although there was an argument about whether this error was harmful, the court decided it was serious enough to affect the outcome of the trial. They concluded that omitting the requirement that the defendant acted knowingly and intentionally could have changed how the jury viewed the evidence and questions raised during the trial. Since the evidence against him was not overwhelming enough to guarantee he was guilty regardless of these instructions, the decision was made to reverse the conviction. Because of this significant error, the court said that Jimmy should get a new trial where the jury would be properly instructed on the law. The other issues he raised in his appeal were not discussed because the main error already warranted a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2012-545

C-2012-686

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-686, Joseph Dewayne Conner appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal regarding the robbery conviction, but granted it concerning the burglary conviction. The court found that Conner had been misinformed about the possible sentence for burglary, which affected his decision to plead guilty. Although Conner’s actual sentence was within the correct range, the incorrect information he received could have influenced his plea. #n dissented on the decision regarding the robbery conviction.

Continue ReadingC-2012-686

F-2011-1062

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1062, Scott Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Phillips' conviction and sentence, but remanded the case for consideration of whether Phillips' sentence should be suspended. One judge dissented. Scott Allen Phillips was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation, which is a serious crime involving inappropriate touching of a child. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, during which he must serve at least 85% before he can be considered for parole. Phillips claimed there were several errors during his trial that should lead to his conviction being overturned. Phillips argued that the prosecutor presented too many instances of inappropriate touching without clearly stating which one he was being accused of for the charge. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction. Additionally, he stated that the judge's decision not to consider a less severe punishment for him was unfair because he exercised his right to a jury trial. Phillips raised multiple issues during the appeal. The court looked at arguments closely and decided that the prosecutor's actions were correct and that they followed the law. They found that there were enough facts for the jury to conclude that Phillips had molested the child. The judges pointed out that the jury's role is to decide who they believe and what evidence to trust. Regarding the sentencing process, the judges noted that the trial judge didn't consider Phillips' request for a lesser sentence. This became important because a judge is expected to think about such requests carefully, regardless of whether the defendant went to trial. This is why the court decided to give the case back to the lower court for a fresh look at Phillips' request for a suspended sentence. Another major point Phillips raised was his concern about how the trial was handled. He asked to speak with jurors after the trial ended, hoping to gather more insight about their decision. However, the court said this was not allowed because jurors cannot discuss their deliberations or decisions after the trial is over. The court also examined the use of videotaped evidence during the trial. Phillips complained that the videos of the alleged victim’s statements should not have been shown again to the jurors while they were discussing. However, the judges felt the decision to show the videos was acceptable and did not harm Phillips' chances at a fair trial. Ultimately, the judges concluded that they would not disturb Phillips' conviction since there was sufficient evidence and no significant errors during the trial that affected the outcome. However, they did want the lower court to look again at Phillips' request for a suspension of his sentence, ensuring he had a fair chance at having that request reviewed properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while allowing the opportunity for reconsideration regarding the potential suspension of the sentence, which shows that even in serious cases, there are processes in place to ensure fair treatment under the law.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1062

F-2012-437

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-437, Mark J. Lawler appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark J. Lawler was found guilty of rape in the first degree by a jury and given a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes during his trial. First, Lawler thought he should have been allowed to represent himself instead of having a lawyer. He argued that this was his right under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court agreed with him, stating that he had clearly asked to represent himself at least five days before the trial, which was a reasonable request. The court also found that Lawler understood the risks involved in defending himself without a lawyer. The trial court was wrong to deny his request, so that was a significant error. Second, Lawler argued that he did not get a speedy trial, which is another right he had under the law. Although there were delays in the trial, the court found that they were not entirely Lawler's fault. The reasons for the delays included busy courts and other issues that were not intentional. However, the court also decided that Lawler did not show he was hurt by the delay, so they did not agree with his claim on this point. In summary, the court found that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing Lawler to represent himself. Because of this error, they reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2012-437

F-2011-1047

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1047, Melvin Edward Dan appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and possession of a firearm after previous juvenile adjudication for a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery and burglary, but reverse the conviction for possession of a firearm. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1047

F-2009-236

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-236, James Lee Copeland, Jr. appealed his conviction for Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but ordered the district court to correct the official record to properly reflect the conviction and remove an incorrect statement about parole eligibility. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2009-236

F-2009-47

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-47, Kenneth Simmons appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. Mark Kenneth Simmons was found guilty of Manslaughter after his trial for Murder in the First Degree. The jury gave him a fifteen-year prison sentence. He appealed, saying the trial court made an error by not informing the jury that he had to serve at least 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The law in Oklahoma states that people convicted of specific crimes, like First Degree Murder or Manslaughter in the First Degree, must serve at least 85% of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. In a previous case, the court decided that jurors should know about these rules when they are deciding on a sentence. During the trial, when the jury asked if they needed to consider the 85% rule, the court told them to continue deliberating without giving any additional information. This was seen as a mistake. The State argued that this mistake did not affect the outcome significantly, but the court disagreed and said it was clear this lack of instruction was a big error. Because of this error, the court couldn’t be confident that the jury fully understood the implications of the sentence they handed down. The court decided that a new sentence should be determined, either by a properly instructed jury or by the District Court if the jury was waived by Simmons. The court affirmed the judgment but vacated the sentence, meaning they believed he should be tried again for sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2009-47

F-2007-526

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-526, Chavis Lenard Day appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. Chavis Lenard Day was found guilty by a jury for two crimes: shooting someone with the intention to kill and attempting to rob that person using a dangerous weapon. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison for both crimes, but these sentences would happen at the same time, not one after the other. During his appeal, Day raised several concerns about his trial. First, he argued that he should not be punished separately for both crimes because it might violate rules against double jeopardy, which means being tried for the same crime twice. However, the court found that it was okay to punish him for both offenses. Day also questioned if the person who identified him as the shooter was telling the truth. The court looked at the evidence and determined that the jury was allowed to trust this witness's testimony, even if it was challenged during the trial. Another issue Day raised was about the advice given to the jury. He claimed the judge didn’t give certain instructions, like reminding them that eyewitnesses can make mistakes. The court decided that these instructions were not necessary and that the trial was fair. Day also thought a witness should not have talked about changing a photo used in the trial because it could confuse the jury. The court explained that mentioning this did not mean Day had done something wrong or had been involved with gangs. Additionally, Day argued that the jury should have been told about how long he would have to serve in prison before being eligible for parole. However, the court found that the law did not require that information for his specific charge. Finally, Day pointed out that a mistake was made in official documents. They stated he was guilty of robbery when he was actually guilty of attempted robbery. The court agreed and said they would fix this error in the official records. In conclusion, the court affirmed Day's punishment but ordered that the documents reflect the correct details of the conviction. Overall, the court found that none of Day's complaints were enough to change the outcome of the trial except for the clerical correction.

Continue ReadingF-2007-526

F-2007-543

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-543, Sean Ray Smith appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from 100 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, opposing the modification and suggesting the case should be sent back for resentencing with proper jury instructions. Sean Ray Smith was found guilty of a serious crime after a jury trial. The jury's verdict led to a very long sentence of 100 years. Smith said there were three mistakes made during the trial. These mistakes included the judge and prosecutor calling the victim a victim, which he argued took away his rights, incorrect information given to the jury about sentencing, and that the 100-year sentence was too harsh. Upon reviewing the case and the evidence presented, the court agreed that one of Smith's claims about the jury instructions was valid. The jury received the wrong instruction regarding how long he would have to serve in prison before being considered for parole. The jurors were confused and asked how many years make up a life sentence, which increased concerns about how they understood the law related to his sentence. The court decided that while there were indeed errors, Smith would not get a new trial. Instead, it reduced his sentence to 45 years, which was deemed more appropriate given the circumstances, including Smith's history and the nature of the crime. The decision made by the court was to uphold the conviction but change the sentence to a lesser punishment. One judge disagreed with this change, believing that the jury should properly decide the length of the sentence without this modification. The strategy suggested by the dissenting judge was to keep the conviction and have the case sent back for proper sentencing instructions.

Continue ReadingF-2007-543

F-2006-905

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-905, Curtis Dale Gibson appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of Two Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of conviction but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gibson was tried by a jury in Jackson County and found guilty of raping a victim. The jury sentenced him to thirty years in prison. Gibson raised several issues in his appeal, including whether he received a fair trial, due to certain evidence being allowed and comments made by the prosecutor. He also argued that he should have received an instruction about parole eligibility and that his prior suspended sentence for another crime should not have been discussed during the trial. The court looked at each point raised by Gibson. It found that the statements from the victim's sister, which claimed she had also been a victim of Gibson, were not hearsay and were admitted correctly. The prosecutor's comments during the trial were not seen as causing enough harm to reverse the decision. However, the court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule regarding when Gibson could be eligible for parole, which was considered a mistake. As a result, the court affirmed Gibson's guilty verdict but changed his sentence, ordering that he be resentenced on account of this issue. The judges involved reached various conclusions, with one judge expressing disagreement with the decision to remand for resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2006-905

F-2005-640

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-640, Don Edward Seely appealed his conviction for Burglary in the First Degree and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to a term of twenty years on each count. One judge dissented. Don Edward Seely was found guilty by a jury. He committed serious crimes, and the jury thought he deserved a long sentence. The judge gave him 21 years for each crime, which would mean he would spend a lot of time in prison. However, there was a problem with how the jury was told to decide the punishment. The judge had made a mistake in telling the jury how long they could send someone to prison for these crimes. Because of this mistake, the court shortened his sentences to 20 years for each crime. Seely argued that the sentences were too long and that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. He also thought the judge should have talked to the jury about some of their questions. While looking through Seely's claims, the court found that most of his arguments were not strong enough to change what happened. They decided that since Seely had previously committed crimes, a total sentence of 40 years (two 20-year sentences) was not surprising or unfair. Seely was not able to prove that his lawyer had made mistakes that would change the outcome of the trial. The court said that even if his lawyer had tried harder, it would not have helped Seely very much. The court also talked about some other things Seely wanted to do, like ask for new trials or present new evidence. However, they decided that redoing the trial was not necessary, especially since they already changed the sentences. Overall, the court agreed with the jury's decision about Seely's guilt but adjusted the punishment because of the earlier error.

Continue ReadingF-2005-640

C-2006-649

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-649, Robert Earl Richardson appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Richardson's request to withdraw his guilty plea, which means he will get another chance for a trial. One judge disagreed with this decision. Richardson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. After his sentencing, he wanted to change his mind about the guilty plea and asked to withdraw it. However, there were delays in hearing his request. Nearly four years after he first asked, a different judge finally listened to his case but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Richardson argued that he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. Specifically, he claimed he was not informed that he would need to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole, which is known as the 85% Rule. This is important because it means a person might spend a long time in prison before they could have a chance to be released early. During the hearing about his request, Richardson’s lawyer said he usually informs clients about this rule but could not remember if he did so with Richardson. Since there was no clear proof that Richardson was informed about it, the court ruled that he could withdraw his guilty plea. The decision was to reverse the lower court's ruling, allowing Richardson to try again and have a fair trial where he can present his side of the story.

Continue ReadingC-2006-649

F-2006-63

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-63, Beverly Michelle Moore appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Moore's sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Two judges dissented. To explain, Beverly Moore was found guilty of killing two-year-old Avery Snyder. Avery had severe head injuries that doctors said were caused by violent shaking, known as shaken baby syndrome. The trial focused on whether Moore or Todd Snyder, Avery's father, caused the injuries. Moore admitted to giving a confession to the police but later recanted, claiming she did not harm the child. During the trial, the jury determined that Moore was responsible for Avery's injuries, leading to her conviction. The jury decided on life imprisonment without parole. However, the decision included a mistake regarding jury instructions about the 85% Rule, which means that for certain crimes, a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found it was necessary for the jury to understand this rule to make an informed sentencing decision. Moore's trial did not provide the jury with clear information about the 85% Rule, which was important after the jury inquired about it during their discussions. This omission was deemed a significant error that likely influenced the jury's decision to impose a harsher sentence. The court ultimately affirmed Moore's conviction for First Degree Murder but ordered that her sentence be modified to allow for the possibility of parole, reflecting the guidelines that should have been communicated to the jury during the sentencing phase. The dissenting judges believed the original sentence should not have been modified, arguing that the trial followed the laws that were in place at that time and no objections had been made during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2006-63

F-2006-429

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-429, David Michael Graham appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the restitution order. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of Lewd Molestation. The jury recommended that he serve 20 years in prison for each count, with the last 10 years suspended under probation conditions. The judge also ordered him to pay $10,000 to each victim. In his appeal, Graham argued several things. First, he claimed that the way the prosecutors behaved during the trial made it unfair. He also said the judge didn’t properly inform the jury about how much of his sentence he would have to serve before getting paroled. Lastly, he felt the restitution amount was too high and lacked support from facts. After reviewing the case, the court agreed there was some misconduct but concluded it did not affect the conviction. The appeal also highlighted that the jury should have been told that he needed to serve 85% of his sentence, which led to changing the sentences to concurrent rather than consecutive. The judges found the order for restitution of $10,000 per count was not backed by evidence, so that part was dismissed. The overall opinion was that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences needed to be modified, and the restitution removed. One judge disagreed with modifying the sentences to run concurrently, believing the original sentencing was appropriate.

Continue ReadingF-2006-429

F-2005-1161

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1161, Isaac Gardner appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy and Attempted Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gardner's conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gardner was found guilty of Forcible Oral Sodomy and the jury recommended a lengthy prison sentence based on evidence presented, including Gardner's past admissions about similar actions. Although the judge allowed some evidence regarding Gardner's past, they did not believe it overly impacted the trial since the jury ultimately acquitted him of the Attempted Sexual Battery charge. Gardner argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to this evidence, but the court disagreed, noting that he had been warned about what evidence would be used against him. They also highlighted that his conviction was upheld because the jury was able to examine the evidence properly. Additionally, Gardner claimed that he should have been informed about parole eligibility under the 85% Rule, which says he would need to serve most of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged this misstep and reduced his sentence accordingly. In summary, the court confirmed that while Gardner’s initial trial and conviction stood, his sentence was adjusted to reflect what he had rightfully requested before the trial began.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1161

C 2005-608

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2005-608, Ricky Allen Rinker appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Rinker's request to withdraw his pleas. One judge dissented. Ricky Allen Rinker made pleas of guilty and nolo contendere for several counts of crimes against children. He was sentenced to a total of over forty years in prison. After some time, Rinker wanted to take back his pleas, saying they were not made knowingly or voluntarily. He believed he was not properly informed about the possible sentences and his eligibility for parole. The court agreed that he had not been properly informed about important rules related to his sentence, particularly that he would need to serve 85% of his time before being eligible for parole. Since this was a serious issue, the court allowed him to withdraw his pleas and overturned his sentence. Some judges thought that Rinker should have to provide more proof that he did not understand the rules concerning his pleas. They believed he had not shown enough evidence that he should be allowed to take back his pleas simply because no official record of his plea was made. However, in the end, the majority ruled in favor of Rinker, allowing him a chance to re-do his plea with all the proper information.

Continue ReadingC 2005-608

F-2006-114

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-114, Tuydale Eugene LeFlore appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Damage, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment for Leaving the Scene and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, but modified his sentence for Second Degree Murder from sixty years to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for the murder charge, arguing that there was no evidence that the jury considered parole during their decision.

Continue ReadingF-2006-114

C-2006-693

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-693, Willeford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Willeford's sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Willeford had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced to twenty years for each count, served one after the other, meaning he would spend a total of forty years in prison. He later wanted to take back his guilty plea and argued that he had not been properly informed about the 85% Rule. This rule states that a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court examined the record and found that Willeford was indeed not advised about this rule. This was a key issue because, based on a previous case, if a defendant isn’t informed about important rules affecting their freedom, it can make their plea involuntary and unfair. Instead of completely overturning Willeford's guilty plea and sending the case back for trial, the court decided to change the sentences so they would be served at the same time, reducing the total prison time he would face. In the dissent, one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the plea should be overturned altogether if it was found to be involuntary. This judge believed that just changing the sentences wasn’t enough and that the entire process needed to be reviewed, suggesting that the original ruling should simply be kept as it was.

Continue ReadingC-2006-693

F-2005-829

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

Continue ReadingF-2005-829

F-2005-527

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-527, Thomas Terrill appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Thomas Terrill was originally charged with First Degree Murder in a case related to a death. During the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of First Degree Manslaughter and suggested a sentence of life in prison. The judge agreed with the jury's recommendation and sentenced Terrell accordingly. Terrill appealed this decision, claiming there were problems with his trial. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed manslaughter. He also contended that the prosecutor made unfair comments that likely influenced the jury, and he believed that the sentence given was too harsh. After reviewing all the arguments and the case details, the court found that, despite Terrill's claims of self-defense, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to decide that he acted in a heat of passion when he caused the victim's death. Therefore, the court did not agree with the claim that the evidence was insufficient for manslaughter. However, the court agreed with Terrill on the other two issues. It found that the prosecutor's comments, which urged the jury to think about the victim's family, were inappropriate, as these feelings should not influence the jurors' decision about the sentence. The court also mentioned that the jury had asked about the parole eligibility during their discussions, but the judge had not given them any additional instructions about this matter. The court pointed out that, based on a previous case, juries need to know relevant information about parole possibilities when deciding on a sentence. Because of these reasons, the decision was made to send the case back for a new sentencing hearing. Although Terrill's conviction for manslaughter was upheld, the previous sentence was set aside to ensure that he is given a fair opportunity during resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2005-527

F-2005-737

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-737, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Lawrence Lugineus Mayes was found guilty by a jury for committing robbery with a gun. After the trial, he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison. However, he thought there were problems with how the trial was handled. He believed the jury should have been told that robbery with firearms is an 85% crime, and that they needed to know how long he would actually serve before he could get out on parole. During the jury's discussions about the sentence, they asked how many years they had to serve before someone could be eligible for parole if they were given a twenty-year sentence. The judge told them that was not something for them to think about. This answer made the jury decide on a longer sentence because they weren’t given clear information about parole eligibility. The court looked at the case and decided that the jury's misunderstanding about parole could have led them to give a harsher sentence than what might have been fair. So, instead of letting the forty-five-year sentence stand, they changed it to thirty-five years. However, they did not believe that the other arguments about the trial and sentencing needed any further changes. In conclusion, the court modified the sentence to thirty-five years but agreed with everything else from the trial. One judge did not agree with this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2005-737

F-2005-440

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-440, Zachary Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Hudson was tried by a jury for First Degree Murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of First Degree Manslaughter. They recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The trial judge followed this recommendation when he sentenced Hudson. After the trial, Hudson raised several points of error in his appeal. He claimed he was not given a fair trial because he thought the court was too involved and was biased toward the State. However, the court found that the judge was simply ensuring that witnesses understood the questions and did not show any partiality. Hudson also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction for manslaughter, and he believed the jury instructions were incorrect. The court found evidence that Hudson fought with the person who died, left, returned, and then ran over that person with his car. This evidence led the court to believe that the jury could find Hudson guilty, as they might think he acted out of anger or passion rather than by accident. Hudson’s last point was about not having the jury instructed on the 85% Rule, which explains how much of a sentence must be served before someone can be eligible for parole. The court agreed that the jury needed this information and decided to modify Hudson's sentence from twenty years to fifteen years in prison while keeping the $10,000 fine. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence because they wanted to ensure that the jury had clear information about parole eligibility, which would help them make informed decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2005-440