In OCCA case No. RE-2019-619, the appellant appealed his conviction for endangering others while trying to avoid the police and possession of a stolen vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to give him credit for four days he had already served in jail. One judge dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2017-684, Bryan Lee Guy appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle, driving while his license was under suspension, and affixing an unauthorized license plate. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal and remand the case to the District Court for a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person exempt from paying the costs of incarceration. One judge dissented. Bryan Guy was charged with three offenses and entered a guilty plea for all of them. He received a sentence that included time in prison and jail, plus post-imprisonment supervision. After a few days, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what he was doing or that he wasn't well advised by his lawyer. The court held a hearing but decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. In his appeal, Bryan raised three main issues. He argued that he should be allowed to take back his guilty plea because it wasn't made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary way. He also complained about being charged for incarceration costs and claimed his lawyer didn't provide effective help. The court looked closely at Bryan’s arguments. It found that he didn’t prove that he didn’t understand his plea, concluding that the trial court acted fairly. Bryan's second point about the costs also didn't stand because he didn't raise it during the first hearing, which meant he could not bring it up later in his appeal. His claim about not getting good help from his lawyer was examined using a specific test. The court noted that Bryan claimed to have been misinformed about the minimum punishment for one of the offenses, but this did not affect the outcome since the misunderstanding was in his favor. Ultimately, the court found that there was a chance Bryan might be mentally ill, which means he might not have to pay for incarceration costs. This was a significant factor, leading to the decision to send the case back to the lower court for more examination of his mental health status. The final decision of the court was to deny the appeal for the first two issues but recognized the need to assess Bryan's mental health concerning the costs he was ordered to pay for incarceration. The case was remanded for that specific determination.
In OCCA case No. RE 2016-0218, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but instructed the lower court to remove the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0706, Sean Eddie Howland appealed his conviction for possessing a stolen vehicle and obstructing an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Howland's suspended sentence and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Howland had pled guilty to the charges in 2009 and was given a suspended sentence that included time in jail and fines. He was supposed to follow rules while on probation. However, the State accused him of not staying in touch with his probation officer after he got out of prison in New Mexico. In 2011, Howland admitted to the allegations, and the judge gave him more time to comply with the probation rules. When Howland didn't show up for a review hearing later, the judge revoked his suspended sentence in 2014. Howland then argued that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer during the revocation process and that the delays were unfair. The State also admitted that the delays hurt Howland's case. After looking at everything, the court agreed with Howland and decided to reverse the revocation. The case was sent back to the lower court to dismiss the revocation.