Personal Knowledge Archives

F-2018-198

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-198, Ann Sykes appealed her conviction for Abuse by Caretaker (Neglect) and Abuse by Caretaker (Financial Exploitation). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Ann Sykes was found guilty of two types of abuse against her son, who is a vulnerable adult. The first conviction was for not providing him with basic needs like food and shelter. The second conviction was for mishandling his money. The court sentenced her to eight years in prison but suspended three years, meaning she would only serve five years in custody. Appellant raised several problems with the trial process. She claimed that hearsay evidence, which is when someone repeats what another person said outside of court, was used against her unfairly. However, the court found that much of the evidence was not considered hearsay because it was not meant to prove the truth of the statements, and any hearsay that was improperly admitted didn't impact the trial's outcome. Sykes also argued that witnesses were allowed to testify without personal knowledge of the information they shared. The court disagreed, stating that witnesses had information based on their own experiences or observations. Another point of appeal was about whether the trial court made mistakes by letting certain opinions into evidence. A social worker testified about how not getting enough nutrition could affect someone's mental state. The court decided that the social worker was qualified to give that information based on her experience. Sykes claimed her two convictions meant she was being punished twice for the same actions, which is called double punishment. The court found that the actions leading to the two charges were different enough to allow both charges to stand without violating the law. She also believed that the charges against her were not clearly stated in the official documents, but the court noted that she didn’t raise this issue during the trial, so it wasn’t considered on appeal. Another argument was that she was denied a right to have a lawyer appointed to help her during the trial. The court found that although there was a lack of a hearing on this, Sykes did have a lawyer who represented her during the trial. Sykes claimed her lawyer did not do a good enough job. The court noted that for a claim like this, Sykes needed to show both that her lawyer did not perform well and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court did not find evidence that the lawyer's actions changed the trial's result. Lastly, Sykes claimed that even with the errors made during her trial, they did not add up to deny her a fair trial overall. The court agreed, concluding that the errors did not require the reversal of her conviction. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, meaning Sykes will continue to serve the time given by the lower court. The application to further review her claims about lawyer effectiveness was denied as well.

S-2012-1012

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-1012, Barry Lee Brown appealed his conviction for a traffic offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the prosecution. One judge dissented. The case began when a police officer claimed to have seen a traffic violation, which led to a stop of Barry Lee Brown's vehicle. After stopping him, the officer suspected that Brown might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A second officer was called to the scene to perform sobriety tests. Before the trial, Barry Lee Brown argued that the stop was not legal and asked the court to throw out any evidence from the stop. During the hearing, the officer who stopped Brown had trouble remembering exactly what happened. He referred to a report written by the second officer, but that officer had not witnessed the stop himself. Initially, the trial court thought there was enough evidence to say the stop was legal, but later changed its mind. The court reviewed different points raised by the state about why the trial court’s decision should be changed. The state argued that the trial court made mistakes in its decision to suppress the evidence. However, the Appeals Court looked carefully at the facts and decided that the trial court had a good reason to change its decision. They noted that the officer who stopped Brown did not have a clear memory and his testimony was mainly based on what was written in another officer's report. The Appeals Court stated it respects the findings of the trial court unless they are clearly wrong or not supported by the evidence. After reviewing everything, they agreed with the trial court's ruling because it was based on the officer's inability to reliably remember the details of the stop. The Appeals Court also addressed the state’s claim that the trial court should not have been allowed to change its previous ruling. They found that the state did not provide enough legal backing for this claim, so they didn't consider it further. Finally, the court looked at whether the first officer could accurately use the report to refresh his memory about the stop. They concluded that just because he accepted the report as true did not mean it helped him remember the stop accurately. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to suppress the evidence that led to the conviction and agreed to dismiss the case.