In OCCA case No. C-2012-699, Holstine appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his request and remanded the case for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented.
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.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-606, Douglas Raymond Norwood appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Norwood's suspended sentences but vacated the portion of the order that unlawfully lengthened his sentences. One judge dissented. Here's a simple summary of what happened in the case: Norwood was given a six-year sentence for possessing cocaine, but this was suspended, meaning he didn’t have to go to jail right away if he followed certain rules. Later, he had problems following those rules, which led to more charges against him for drug possession. He confessed to these new charges and took a plea deal, which resulted in longer sentences. After some time, a judge reviewed his case and decided to reduce his sentences but required him to go to a program called Avalon after he got out of jail. Norwood didn’t manage to get into Avalon because he couldn't pay the admission fees, which led the judge to completely revoke his suspended sentences. Norwood argued in court that the judge shouldn’t have done that because he had followed some of the rules, and he claimed he didn't intend to break those rules. However, the court found that he didn’t follow the requirement to report to Avalon properly. In the final decision, the court agreed with Norwood about a mistake in how his sentence was handled, stating that the judge had taken away more time than he should have. But overall, the court decided that Norwood had violated his probation, so he had to serve his time in jail as determined by the judge.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-710, Jermaine Richard Newton appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of his suspended sentences to time served. One judge dissented. Newton had originally pleaded guilty to the charges and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison right away as long as he followed certain rules. One of the rules was that he could not break any laws. Later, he was accused of violating a protective order that had been put in place to keep him away from a specific person. The court examined whether there was enough evidence to show that Newton had broken the order. They found that there was enough proof that he had violated the order by being near the person it was intended to protect. The court also looked at whether the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was fair or too harsh. The judges noted that he was young and hadn't been in trouble before this violation. They concluded that sending him to prison for the full ten years was not necessary since he hadn't done anything very dangerous lately. In the end, the court decided he should not serve the full ten years but should instead be given a second chance, and they ordered that he should be returned to probation. The judges who agreed with this decision believed it was a fair outcome. However, one judge disagreed and felt that the original decision to revoke his suspended sentences should stand.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-277, Crystal Lynn Erb appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of new, conflict-free counsel to represent Erb in her application to withdraw her Alford plea. One judge dissented. Crystal Lynn Erb was charged with child neglect after she was accused of not taking care of her infant, Tamberlyn Wheeler. The events that led to the charges happened between January 2008 and April 2008, but the official charges were not filed until January 2011. This was a delay of almost 2 years and 9 months. A preliminary hearing took place in May 2011, and Erb was bound over on the charge. On October 12, 2011, she entered an Alford plea, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted a plea deal because it was in her best interest. She agreed to testify against her co-defendant, Samuel Wheeler, and was released on her own recognizance. During the sentencing hearing in February 2012, Erb was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Shortly after, her lawyer filed a motion for her to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that Erb was innocent. However, during the hearing for this motion, the lawyer did not present any strong arguments or evidence for why Erb should be allowed to withdraw her plea. The judge denied the motion. Erb later filed an appeal and sought a review by the court, raising several claims for why her plea should be re-evaluated. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or intelligently and that she did not receive good legal help due to a conflict with her attorney. The court noted that the issues Erb raised in her appeal were not dealt with properly by her lawyer when they tried to withdraw her plea. The court expressed concerns about whether her plea was voluntary and if her attorney did not provide effective assistance. Since the same lawyer represented Erb during both the plea and the motion process, the court decided that Erb needed a new attorney who could help her without any conflicts of interest. As a result, the court ordered that the case be sent back to appoint a new lawyer for Erb so that they could help her file a new application to withdraw her Alford plea and represent her in any related hearings. The decision was made to ensure that Erb received fair and effective legal help.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-684, Harold Robert Walker, Jr. appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs (Second Offense), Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana) (Second Offense), and Carrying a Concealed Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Walker's participation in the Drug Court program, but it remanded the case to correct sentences that exceeded the maximum punishment allowed by law. One justice dissented on the issue of resentencing.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-138, the appellant, a man named Steven Wayne Robertson, appealed his conviction for several felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified one of his sentences to a lower term of imprisonment. One judge dissented. Robertson had pleaded guilty to serious crimes including aggravated assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other offenses. He had been sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but the execution of that sentence was suspended, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed certain rules in a special program. Later, the state stated that Robertson had broken the rules of the program. He had failed several drug tests and had some run-ins with the law. The judge held a hearing to look into these claims. The evidence showed that Robertson was not following the program's rules and was not cooperating with mental health services. When the judge decided to revoke Robertson’s suspended sentence, he explained that he believed that enough evidence supported this decision. The court also looked at whether original sentences were too long. It was decided that, for the aggravated assault and battery charge, the length of the sentence was more than what the law allowed. Ultimately, while the court upheld the decision to revoke Robertson's sentence for breaking the program rules, they changed his original sentence for one of the charges to the correct legal maximum allowed.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-875, #Edgar Lee Ussery appealed his conviction for #possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. In an #unpublished decision, the court decided #to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. #No one dissented. In this case, Edgar Lee Ussery entered a guilty plea to two counts of possession with intent to distribute drugs. He did this after a previous felony conviction. By working with the Drug Court program, he hoped to avoid a long prison sentence. However, if he did not complete the program, he faced up to twenty years in prison for each count. Later, the state asked to terminate Ussery's participation in the Drug Court because of new felony charges he faced. The judge agreed, and Ussery was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, served at the same time. Ussery wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he asked the court to let him withdraw it. He argued that the court wrongly kicked him out of Drug Court. He also claimed that he didn’t fully understand what he was pleading to at the time. The court looked at these claims. They found that Ussery knew what he was agreeing to when he made his plea. They also decided that the judge wasn't wrong to remove him from Drug Court based on his new felony charges. However, Ussery pointed out some mistakes in the process. He argued that the judgment didn’t show he got credit for the time he had already served and incorrectly said he had two previous felony convictions instead of one. The court agreed that his sentence needed some correction to reflect he would get credit for time served and recognized that only one felony conviction was used for his case. They sent the case back to fix these issues but left the other parts of Ussery’s sentence the same. In conclusion, the court denied his request to withdraw his plea, but they did agree to fix some details about how his conviction was recorded.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-592, Philipe Jean Pace appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the writ and allow the Petitioner to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Philipe Jean Pace was charged with a crime and, instead of going to trial, he decided to plead nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The trial judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he only had to serve the first ten years. After the plea, Pace wanted to change his mind and asked to withdraw his plea, but the court said no. In his appeal, Pace argued two main points. First, he said he didn't understand what he was doing when he gave up his right to have a lawyer help him. He claimed that he didn't really know what would happen if he represented himself. Second, he believed that he was confused and didn’t make a proper decision to plead guilty. The higher court looked at all the details, including what happened in the trial court. They found that the original court did not really explain to Pace the risks of not having a lawyer. They noted that just because he had signed a form saying he wanted to waive his right to counsel, it didn't mean he actually understood what he was giving up. The judges pointed out that there was no evidence in the record that he was properly informed about the dangers of self-representation or that he clearly stated he wanted to represent himself. Because of these problems, the higher court ruled that the lower court made a mistake when it denied Pace's request to withdraw his plea. They believed it was important for a person to fully understand their rights and the consequences of their choices in court. As a result, the court decided that Pace could withdraw his plea and would be able to have a trial.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-819, Joshua Dee Taylor appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery in Presence of Minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of three years of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Joshua Dee Taylor was sentenced for two crimes: one serious and one misdemeanor. These were combined into a single sentence where he was supposed to serve time in prison but was allowed to stay out under certain rules, like not leaving Oklahoma without permission and taking his medication. However, he got into trouble after the state said he broke the rules of his probation. The state said Taylor didn’t report to his probation officer, left the state without permission, didn’t pay required fees, and had trouble with taking his medications. Because of these violations, the court held a hearing and decided that he had indeed violated the rules. The judge revoked part of his probation, taking away three years of his suspended sentence. In his appeal, Taylor claimed the judge made mistakes in deciding to revoke his probation. He argued that the written order did not match what the judge said in court and that the judge unfairly included conditions that were not agreed upon verbally. He also claimed the decision to revoke was unreasonable because his mental state made it hard for him to follow the instructions. Taylor said he could not pay the probation fees and that there were many errors made during his case. The court looked closely at his arguments. They noticed that there was an error in the written order compared to what was said in court and suggested the lower court fix this. However, they decided that even with this error, the other reasons for revoking his probation were valid, and he still broke the rules by not complying. Even though they acknowledged his points about medication and fees, they agreed that other violations were enough to support the judge’s decision to revoke his probation. They stated that he understood the rules but chose not to follow them. The appeal resulted in the court affirming the revocation while instructing the lower court to correct the paperwork.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-695, Marcus Jermaine Christon appealed his conviction for multiple charges including burglary and possession of drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. J-2011-394, R.J.T. appealed his conviction for multiple counts of arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's certification of R.J.T. to the juvenile system for prosecution. One judge dissented. R.J.T., who turned fifteen just days before the alleged offenses, was charged in Cleveland County District Court with several counts of arson. The law allows for individuals like R.J.T. to be considered youthful offenders, meaning they could be treated differently than adults in the legal system. The Youthful Offender Act lets a young person ask to be moved to the juvenile justice system either before or during a preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing on May 4, 2011, R.J.T.'s lawyer had not filed a formal request to have R.J.T. tried as a juvenile. Instead, they agreed that R.J.T. would plead guilty to being a youthful offender, which would lead to a delay in sentencing while he was on probation. However, the judge expressed concern about this agreement, questioning whether he could move R.J.T. to the juvenile system on his own if they waived the preliminary hearing. After some discussion, R.J.T. waived the preliminary hearing. The judge then proceeded to consider if R.J.T. should be certified to the juvenile system, looking into evidence including a psychological report. The judge found that R.J.T. had strong family support, no prior criminal history, and had been doing well in school. It was revealed that he had ADHD and had been removed from medication around the time of the offenses. The judge also heard that R.J.T. was shy and struggled socially but had not caused any injuries in the incidents he was accused of. At the end of the hearing, the judge decided to certify R.J.T. to the juvenile system for prosecution after considering the guidelines established by law. This decision meant that R.J.T. would be treated more like a child than an adult in the legal system. The state then appealed this decision, believing that the judge had made mistakes. On appeal, the state argued two main points. First, they said the judge shouldn't have rejected the waiver of the preliminary hearing since it would mean R.J.T. wouldn’t be able to take the plea deal. Second, they claimed that the judge shouldn’t have certified R.J.T. as a juvenile because he considered factors not allowed by law. However, the court found that the judge acted within his rights to consider the certification issue and that he did so correctly, based on the evidence. The court noted that there was enough information to support the judge's decision. They stated that the goal of the youthful offender system is to ensure public safety while giving young people a chance for rehabilitation. The court's decision reaffirmed that R.J.T. would continue in the juvenile system, allowing for different treatment options than if he were handled as an adult. The decision was approved by most judges, but one judge disagreed, arguing that the judge had overstepped by forming conclusions without sufficient evidence being presented. In conclusion, the May 4, 2011, order certifying R.J.T. to the juvenile system was upheld by the court, which believed that this path offered the best chance for R.J.T.'s rehabilitation and the safety of the community.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-457, Jacquelin Clariece Alexander appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for one charge, but reversed the revocation for the other charge, sending it back for dismissal. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1113, Rodney Gene Cullins appealed his conviction for several drug-related crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his fine but otherwise affirmed the trial court's judgment and denied his request to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge dissented. Rodney Cullins was convicted of multiple felonies related to drugs, including manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. He entered a plea agreement that included participating in a Drug Court program, which he did not successfully complete, leading the state to seek his removal from the program. As a result, he was sentenced to life in prison and given various fines. Cullins later tried to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming double jeopardy (being punished for the same crime twice), receiving incorrect information about his sentencing, and arguing that his sentences were too harsh. However, the court found that he had not raised some of these issues during his trial, making it difficult for them to review his case fully. For one issue regarding a fine that was too high, the court agreed and lowered the fine on one of his charges from $50,000 to $10,000. The court maintained that all other aspects of his sentence would remain as originally imposed. In summary, while Cullins had some success in reducing his fines, the bulk of his appeal was not successful, and his prison terms remained intact.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.
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.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-655, Paul Renodo Epperson appealed his conviction for violating a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of part of his suspended sentence but vacated the assessment of jail fees that had not yet been incurred. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery by strangulation and threatening to perform an act of violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the second count but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the first count. One judge dissented. James Duane Dorsey, Jr. entered a guilty plea for domestic assault and battery and no contest for threatening to perform an act of violence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended, and 90 days in county jail for the first count. For the second count, he received a suspended one-year jail sentence, to run at the same time as the first count. Dorsey later tried to withdraw his pleas, but the trial court did not allow it. In his appeal, Dorsey argued two main points. First, he claimed his plea for the first charge was not valid because the court did not show enough facts to justify the plea. Second, he said the sentence for the second count was too long and needed to be changed. The court looked carefully at the entire case record before making a decision. They found that for the first point, Dorsey did not mention the lack of facts during his earlier motions, which means it was not properly brought up in his appeal. The court determined that, under their rules, they could only check for serious mistakes, not just any errors. They confirmed that Dorsey's pleas were made knowingly and that the court had the right to accept them. Dorsey had admitted to the crime of strangulation during his hearing, and the state had evidence to support the charge of threatening violence. For the second point, the court agreed with Dorsey that his sentence for the second count was too long. They noted that the maximum sentence for that misdemeanor should be six months. Therefore, they adjusted the sentence down to six months, but still suspended it. Overall, the court accepted Dorsey’s pleas and affirmed his conviction for the first count. However, they changed his sentence for the second count to fit within legal limits. One judge disagreed with how the court reviewed the first point but agreed with the rest of the decision.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-239, the appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of revocation to allow for concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences. One judge dissented regarding the finding of excessiveness in the revocation order. In the case, the appellant, who was originally given the benefit of a deferred sentence and then suspended sentences, was accused of violating his probation by not reporting to his probation officer. The sentencing judge ultimately revoked his suspended sentences and imposed a total of eight years in prison, which he argued was excessive. The court reviewed the record and statements made by the judge during the revocation hearing. They determined that although the judge had the power to revoke less than the full suspension, the circumstances of the case warranted a modification to allow the sentences to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively as originally ordered. Additionally, the appellant contended that a second assessment for victim compensation was unlawful, as it exceeded the statutory limit. However, the court noted that the compensation assessments were appropriate and not void, concluding that this issue did not affect the validity of the revocation order itself. The final decision directed the district court to change the revocation order to reflect concurrent serving of sentences while affirming the other aspects of the revocation.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-944, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act did not apply to the defendant. A dissenting opinion was not stated. The case involved the defendant, who was previously charged under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The key question was whether later amendments to the law should apply to him or not, given that he had entered a plea in 1999 and had complied with the previous legal conditions. The magistrate in the lower court determined that the law changes would be unfair to apply retroactively in the defendant's case. The court explained that new laws usually apply to future actions unless they are explicitly stated to have retroactive effects. They found no clear indication in the legislature's changes to imply that the new requirements should apply to those who had already been sentenced under the old rules. The court confirmed that since the amendments would change the defendant's obligations significantly, these substantive changes should not apply to him. As a result, the decision maintained that the lower court's refusal to move forward on the charge against the defendant could stand, with the matter being sent back to the District Court for any further actions needed, while affirming that the defendant was correct in his assertion that the recent amendments did not apply to him.
In OCCA case No. C-2008-1155, Sean Phillip Gillen appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Minor, Rape in the Second Degree, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the appeal for three of the counts but allowed Gillen to withdraw his plea for the fourth count. One judge dissented. Gillen had entered guilty pleas to all counts in a previous court. He was given ten years in prison for the first two counts and one year for the last two counts, all to be served at the same time. After some time, Gillen wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming various issues, including that he was not competent to make the plea, and that he did not have good legal help. The court looked at several issues. It found that Gillen was competent to enter his guilty plea because he had previously been deemed competent only a few months before. The judge in the initial court talked with Gillen, and Gillen understood what he was pleading guilty to. Also, since his lawyer did not question Gillen’s competence during the plea hearing, the court believed it was acceptable to keep the plea. However, when considering the plea for the count of Obstructing an Officer, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support this charge. The record showed that when asked if a runaway was inside the house, Gillen first said no but then admitted that the runaway was there. The court couldn’t see this as a clear act of obstruction. On the other issues, the court found that Gillen's pleas to the other counts were made knowingly and willingly. It rejected Gillen's claims that he did not have good legal help and that his sentence was too harsh. The court ruled that the ten-year sentence for his serious charges was not shocking and was appropriate. In summary, the court decided that Gillen could not take back his pleas for the first three counts but could withdraw his guilty plea for the fourth count, which was about obstructing an officer. The dissenting judge believed that Gillen should have a hearing to discuss whether he really understood what it meant to plead guilty without a deal, considering his past mental health issues.