In OCCA case No. F-2001-1488, Robert Wesley Choate appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a precursor, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction for manufacturing but reversed the conviction for possession of a precursor, which means that his punishment for that charge was dismissed. One member of the court dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-528, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, granting a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was convicted of a serious offense and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The appellant argued that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. He claimed three main errors: first, that his lawyer did not do enough research on the case; second, that he was not allowed to question a witness about a sexual encounter; and third, that his lawyer had a conflict of interest. Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the lawyer's help was indeed lacking. Specifically, the lawyer did not know important details about two witnesses that could have helped the appellant's defense. This failure to prepare affected the case negatively, indicating that the defense was not done well enough. The court also concluded that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the appellant to explore certain evidence regarding the witness. However, since the lawyer did not raise the issue correctly, it did not automatically mean there was a problem. In the end, because of the arguments about the lawyer's effectiveness and the problems with how evidence was handled, the court decided that a new trial was necessary. One judge believed that the trial judge had made the right decisions and that everything should remain as it was. The overall outcome was that the original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial so the appellant could have another chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-985, Karyn Jo Webb appealed her conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Karyn Jo Webb was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. She believed her lawyer did not help her properly during the trial. Karyn said her lawyer did not look into important medical evidence that might show she was innocent. She also thought her lawyer did not question the state’s medical experts well and missed gathering good character references that could help her side of the case. The court looked carefully at all the information from the trial and decided that Karyn’s lawyer did not perform well. They concluded that he was not able to act as a good defense lawyer, which is why Karyn should get a new trial. The main issue was that without a medical expert, her lawyer could not effectively fight against the accusations that she harmed the child. Therefore, the court said Karyn deserved another chance to prove her case.
In OCCA case No. C-1999-766, Larnell Baucom, Jr. appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's ruling and allow Baucom to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Baucom had pleaded guilty to the crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and received a ten-year prison sentence along with a suspended fine. Later, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that his attorney had given him incorrect advice regarding his potential sentence. The court looked at the case thoroughly, reviewing all records, transcripts, and Baucom's arguments. The main issue was whether the trial court was right to deny Baucom's request to withdraw his plea. The court found that Baucom’s attorney did not provide effective legal support, which led to Baucom entering his plea based on wrong information. Therefore, the court ruled that he should get the chance to withdraw his plea if he wants to. The dissenting opinion said that Baucom did not prove his plea was not knowingly made and that there was no strong evidence of improper advice from his lawyer. The dissenting judge argued that it was not the court's responsibility to act as Baucom's lawyer or raise issues that were not directly claimed by him.