Pottawatomie County

RE-2004-593

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-593, the Appellant appealed his conviction for revoking his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the Appellant, after pleading guilty to Sexual Battery, was sentenced to five years in prison, which was suspended under certain conditions. However, he did not follow these conditions, leading to the State filing a motion to revoke his suspended sentence multiple times. Initially, the Appellant missed treatment sessions, failed to pay necessary fees, and showed a lack of effort to engage in his treatment. After some violations, he had a short revocation of sixty days. Later, the State found he had violated other conditions, such as not registering as a sex offender and changing his residence without informing his probation officer. During the hearing, the judge decided that the Appellant had not followed the rules, thus revoking his suspended sentence and requiring him to serve five years in prison. The Appellant argued that since he had already lost sixty days, his remaining time should be less than five years. The State agreed, stating it should be four years and ten months instead. The court acknowledged the Appellant’s previous short revocation and made the necessary adjustment to his sentence length. Although the Appellant argued the full revocation was too harsh, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision, stating that it was within their discretion to revoke the sentence based on the Appellant's repeated failures to comply with probation rules. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke the Appellant's remaining suspended sentence but corrected the duration of time he was required to serve.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-593

RE-2003-918

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated him from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began on April 10, 2002, when the appellant pleaded no contest to a DUI charge. He was given a suspended sentence, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules. He also had to pay a fine and do community service. Later, he faced another DUI charge. He pleaded guilty again with a promise that if he successfully completed the Drug Court program, he wouldn’t have to face further charges for the first DUI. However, on May 1, 2003, the State accused him of violating the terms of the Drug Court program. The State claimed he had been sanctioned multiple times for not following the rules. On August 5, 2003, the court decided to revoke his suspended sentence and ended his participation in the Drug Court program. The appellant believed the court made a mistake by terminating him from Drug Court based on violations he had already been punished for. He felt this was unfair and argued it amounted to double jeopardy, which means being punished twice for the same offense. The State argued that they were not punishing him again for those violations but believed that the sanctions had not helped him change his behavior. The court examined the situation and found that the appellant had already faced consequences for his earlier violations. It agreed with him that the reasons for his termination were flawed. The judges noted that if prior violations were allowed to be counted again for the same termination, it would be unfair and might discourage other participants in Drug Court. The court decided to remand the case back to the lower court, allowing the appellant to return to the Drug Court program with the original rules he had agreed upon. The judges highlighted that a new violation must occur in order for more severe actions, like termination, to be taken. In summary, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, indicating that the reasons for his termination from Drug Court were not valid, thus restoring his opportunity to complete the program.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-918

M-2003-513

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-513, the appellant appealed her conviction for resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the fine for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty by a jury for two charges: resisting an officer and possession of marijuana. The incident happened when a truck driver reported a car driving erratically on a highway. When officers arrived, they found the appellant behind the wheel, showing signs of intoxication with the smell of alcohol and marijuana. Initially, the appellant was compliant, but she soon became aggressive and refused to cooperate with the officers. When they tried to arrest her, a struggle ensued, and the appellant physically fought with the officers. After getting her under control, the officers conducted a search of her vehicle and found marijuana. Later, while being booked at the jail, they discovered she had a marijuana cigarette in her pocket. The appellant believed her sentence of twenty months for the crimes was too harsh. She requested that they serve her sentences at the same time instead of one after the other. However, the court found that the sentences were reasonable and did not shock their conscience, so they decided to keep them consecutive. However, they agreed with the appellant that a fine of $1,000 imposed by the trial court was too high, as it exceeded what the law allowed. The maximum fine for the possession charge was actually $500 according to the law, so they reduced her fine to this amount. In summary, while the court upheld the appellant's conviction and the overall punishment, they made a small change to the fine amount.

Continue ReadingM-2003-513

F-2001-991

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-991, Clayton Armstead appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base) with Intent to Distribute, Second or Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction, but modify his sentence. One judge dissented on the modification of the sentence. Armstead faced serious charges after a jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to 30 years in prison and a hefty fine. He raised several issues in his appeal, arguing that the jury was given wrong information about his sentence, that he should have been allowed to argue for a lesser charge, that he faced double punishment for the same act, and that his lawyer didn’t provide adequate defense. He also claimed his punishment was too harsh. The court carefully reviewed everything from the trial and found that there was indeed a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the possible punishments for his crime. The law stated he could have faced a different range of punishment, and since this legal error was recognized, the court decided to change his sentence to 10 years in prison and a lower fine. While one part of the court agreed with this decision, another judge noted that the jury should have considered a different minimum sentence, and believed that a 24-year sentence would have been more appropriate instead of changing it to 10 years. In conclusion, Armstead kept his conviction, but his sentence was changed to be less severe than what the jury initially decided.

Continue ReadingF-2001-991

F-2001-687

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, #1 appealed his conviction for #Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #the case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. #2 dissented. Summary: The appellant, a person accused of writing bad checks, entered a plea in 1995 but later faced problems with following court rules. She was supposed to pay money back for the checks she wrote, but she didn't pay all of it. Over the years, the state said she had not done what she needed to do, like meeting with a probation officer and paying fees. As a result, her sentence was changed and she spent time in jail. The appellant had two cases against her. The first case involved writing four bad checks totaling $140, but she was told to pay back over $6,000, which she felt was too much. She argued that the court should not make her pay for other checks she wasn't charged with. The second case involved her admitting guilt for a poor check and being given jail time that was suspended, meaning she wouldn't go to jail unless she misbehaved. But the state also said she didn’t follow the rules connected to this case. During the hearings, the court decided she had broken the rules, leading to her jail time and fees. The key issues in her appeal were whether she should pay restitution for other checks and whether the amounts charged were fair. The court found that the records were unclear, so they sent the case back to get more facts about how much she really owed and if she could pay it back without it being a big problem for her or her family. The court needed to figure out three main things: why she had to pay for checks she wasn't charged with, if she could pay without hardship, and the correct amount she actually owed. The other point brought up was whether the fees for being in jail were too high and if the way those fees were charged followed the law. In conclusion, the court said the lower court needs to look at these issues again to make sure everything is fair.

Continue ReadingF-2001-687

RE 2000-1512

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1512, the appellant appealed her conviction for Omission to Provide for a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, in 1998, pled guilty to not providing for a minor. Instead of going to jail, she was given a chance to prove herself with what is called a deferred sentence. This means that if she followed the rules for a certain period, she wouldn’t have to serve time. However, in July 1999, the state decided to put her on a faster track to face her punishment due to some issues that had come up. In February 2000, the court decided to give her a suspended sentence of four years. This meant she wouldn’t go to jail but would have to follow certain rules. In September 2000, the state complained that she wasn’t following those rules, so they filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentence. The court held a hearing about this in November 2000 and decided to take away her suspended sentence entirely. The appellant then appealed this decision, meaning she wanted a higher court to look at whether the lower court made mistakes. She argued three main points in her appeal: 1. She claimed that the court made a big mistake by revoking her sentence with a lawyer who had conflicts of interest. This was important because having a lawyer who could represent her well was her right. 2. She said that the evidence used to take away her sentence was not good enough. In her view, the state did not prove that she had truly broken the rules. 3. She also believed that the revocation of her sentence was too harsh, especially because of the lack of strong evidence against her. During the hearing, it became clear that the lawyer who represented her in both her first plea and during the revocation hearing had ties to the state. This was considered a conflict of interest, which the court emphasized is not acceptable. In the end, the court found that the appellant was right about the conflict of interest and that this issue was serious enough to reverse the decision made by the lower court. The case was sent back for further proceedings where these problems with her representation could be addressed.

Continue ReadingRE 2000-1512