In OCCA case No. F-2014-931, Jeffrey Tallon appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed the sentences and ordered resentencing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2015-568, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Christopher Daniel Welch for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision to dismiss the case, stating that the evidence did not support the charge. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2015-87, Donna Long and Lillian Shipman appealed their conviction for Financial Exploitation by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's dismissal of the case. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma charged Long and Shipman with financially exploiting Shipman's mother-in-law, who had passed away. The case revolved around two checks signed by the mother-in-law shortly before her death. The first check was for $5,500, and the second check was for $250,000, which the defendants deposited. During the preliminary hearing, the judge found that the evidence did not support the State's claims that the defendants were caretakers or that they exploited the deceased. The judge noted that while there were checks involved, there wasn't enough proof that Long and Shipman acted improperly or had bad intent in obtaining these checks. Both defendants filed motions to quash the information, claiming there was not enough evidence for the case to continue. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to prove their guilt. The case was then appealed to a higher court, which reviewed the lower court's decision. The higher court concluded that the lower court did not make an error and affirmed the dismissal of the charges against Long and Shipman, agreeing that there was insufficient evidence presented during the preliminary hearing to justify proceeding with the case. In summary, the case focused on whether the defendants financially exploited their relative, but the court found the evidence lacking, leading to the dismissal of the charges.
In OCCA case No. S-2014-812, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Adam Clayton Zilm for Sexual Abuse of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court that suppressed certain child hearsay statements. One judge dissented. The case started when Adam Clayton Zilm was charged with sexually abusing a minor in Tulsa County. Before the trial began, there was a hearing to determine if the statements made by the child victim, K.A., could be used as evidence in the trial. During this Reliability Hearing, the child made statements to a forensic interviewer and a neighbor about the alleged abuse. However, K.A. later testified that she had not been abused and said she had been influenced to make claims about the abuse. The State argued that the trial court was wrong to suppress the child’s statements because they believed the statements should have been allowed to support the case against Zilm. The court had to decide if these hearsay statements were trustworthy to be presented at trial. According to Oklahoma law, a child’s hearsay statements can be used if the court finds them to be reliable based on several factors. The trial court decided that K.A.'s statements to the forensic interviewer and neighbor were not reliable enough. They allowed K.A. to give her testimony because it was necessary to determine if her earlier statements could be trusted. The court found inconsistencies in her testimony compared to her earlier claims, which made the hearsay statements questionable. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that they did not abuse their discretion by suppressing the hearsay statements from the child victim. They believed the trial court made the right choice by considering the total context around the statements. Meanwhile, one judge disagreed. This judge felt that the earlier statements made by K.A. should still be considered admissible. They argued that the trial court focused too much on K.A.'s later testimony, which could have been influenced and not truly reflected what had happened earlier. Overall, the court decided that the suppression of the hearsay evidence was appropriate, allowing the earlier ruling to stand and ensuring that K.A.'s inconsistent statements were not used in the trial against Adam Clayton Zilm.
In OCCA case No. S-2014-759, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the case. #n dissented. In this case, the State of Oklahoma charged Chad Allan Lunsford with serious drug crimes. The police found a large amount of methamphetamine and other drug-related items in a car after they stopped the driver for a traffic violation. The driver, Gloria Caffey, was arrested, and Lunsford was also taken into custody after the police found the drugs. Lunsford said the case should be thrown out because the State didn’t prove that he owned or knew about the drugs. He argued that just being in the car wasn’t enough to show that he controlled the drugs. The judge in the district court agreed with Lunsford and dismissed the case, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to show that he had control over the drugs. The court explained that just being near drugs doesn’t mean someone is guilty. There has to be more proof, showing that the person really knew the drugs were there and had control over them. For example, in this case, the drugs were found in a bottle with Caffey's name on it, and she admitted they were hers. Also, there was no clear evidence that Lunsford was trying to hide anything, and he didn’t try to run away when he could. When the State appealed the judge’s decision, the higher court looked at the facts carefully. They reviewed whether the lower court made a mistake in its decision. The higher court found that the lower court was correct in dismissing the case because they didn’t have the right evidence to show Lunsford was guilty. Thus, they agreed to keep the lower court's dismissal. However, one judge did not agree with the decision. This dissenting judge thought that the trial court made a mistake by not considering some evidence that could connect Lunsford to the drugs. They felt that there were enough signs showing Lunsford might have had knowledge and control over the drugs, and the matters should have been decided by a jury. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Lunsford, agreeing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he was guilty of the drug charges.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, S-2013-695, S-2013-696, the defendants appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against the defendants. No one dissented. The case began when three bail bondsmen, Fred Green and his two employees, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg, were charged with kidnapping and burglary after they tried to arrest two people, Billy and Pam Jones, who had skipped out on their bail. They went to a home in Pawnee County where the Joneses were staying and entered without permission. They handcuffed the couple and attempted to take them to jail. However, the defendants argued that they had the legal right to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond with them. The court found that since they were acting within their legal authority when they arrested the couple, they did not commit kidnapping or burglary. The State disagreed, claiming that the defendants had intended to commit a crime. However, the court concluded that the defendants were within their rights and did not abuse their power. Therefore, the charges were dismissed, and the court upheld this dismissal in their ruling.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green appealed his conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against him and his co-defendants, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg. One judge dissented. The case began when Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were charged after they went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, for breaching their bail bond. They entered the home without permission and removed the Joneses, leading to their arrest. However, the court found that since Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were acting as bail bondsmen with the legal authority to arrest, they did not commit the crimes of burglary or kidnapping. The state argued that their actions were unlawful since they entered the home with the intent to kidnap. However, the court determined that the bondsmen acted within their rights, resulting in the dismissal of charges.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green, Ronald Krushe, and Christopher Thornburg appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them. One judge dissented. The case began when the three men, who were bail bondsmen, went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, who were staying there. They knocked on the door, entered the home, and handcuffed the Joneses to take them into custody. The homeowner, Patrick Wills, and his wife were not happy about this and called the police. While Green and his employees thought they were legally allowed to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond, the State of Oklahoma disagreed and charged them with burglary and kidnapping. The trial court disagreed, stating that the bondsmen did have the right to make the arrests. The State argued that the men acted unlawfully because of certain statements made during the incident, but the court found that they were working within their rights as bail bondsmen. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to dismiss the charges, stating there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in concluding that the bondsmen were acting legally.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-250, Richard Shane Kuehn appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of seven years of Kuehn's twelve-year suspended sentence was reversed because the judge who decided his case had previously worked as a prosecutor on it. Kuehn claimed he did not get a fair hearing because of this, and the court agreed, stating that judges cannot preside over cases in which they have been involved as attorneys without consent from the parties. Kuehn's other claims were not reviewed since the court found for him on the first point.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-687, the appellant appealed his conviction for DUI manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, stating that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the appellant's actions were the direct cause of the victim's death. Two justices dissented from the decision. The case involved an incident that took place on October 11, 2012, when the appellee was charged with first-degree manslaughter. This charge stemmed from the accidental death of his wife, Linda Vaughan, while he was driving under the influence of alcohol. During the preliminary hearing, it was revealed that Vaughan was intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level of .14, and that his wife had exited the truck he was driving. She was killed when he accidentally ran over her. Vaughan argued that the state's evidence failed to show that his driving while intoxicated was the direct cause of Linda's death. Testimony from a highway patrolman indicated that while Vaughan may have been more aware of his surroundings if he were sober, Linda's death would have occurred regardless of his intoxication. The court examined whether the state had presented enough evidence to prove that the appellee's actions directly caused the victim's death. They found that the evidence showed Linda made the choice to leave the vehicle and that her death was caused by her own actions, not by the appellee's impaired driving. Because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of DUI manslaughter, the court upheld the decision of the lower court, which had granted Vaughan's demurrer, meaning they did not find probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. In the end, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the evidence was not strong enough to support the charge against Vaughan. The decision did not minimize the tragedy of the accident but emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in such cases.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-483, the defendant appealed his conviction for various crimes involving minors, including sodomy, lewd acts, and sexual battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the State's appeal regarding the exclusion of certain evidence. One judge dissented from this decision. Thomas Bradley Porton was charged with serious crimes against children. The crimes included sodomy and other lewd acts, as well as providing alcohol to minors and possessing indecent photographs. These charges were based on incidents that occurred in McCurtain County. During the pretrial, the State wanted to use photographs found on Porton's computer as evidence. However, the judge ruled that these photographs could not be used in court. The State believed that the photos were important to prove their case against Porton. They argued that the photographs showed a pattern of behavior that related to the crimes he was charged with. The State appealed the judge's decision to keep the photographs out of the trial. They said that their ability to prove Porton's guilt was greatly affected without this evidence. The law allows the State to appeal when evidence is excluded if it is believed to be in the interests of justice. However, the court found that the State did not show that the photographs were a critical part of the evidence needed to prove the case. Because of this, the appeal was denied, meaning the photographs would not be part of the trial. The ruling pointed out that the trial judge had looked closely at the case and had reasonable grounds to decide that the photographs were not relevant or that their potential to cause unfair problems outweighed their usefulness as evidence. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion. He felt that the photographs should not have been excluded because they could help prove Porton's motive and intent regarding the charges. He argued that evidence of other actions taken by the defendant should have been considered, especially since there were connections between the photographs and the charges against Porton. In summary, the court upheld the lower court's decision to exclude the evidence, impacting the State's case against Porton, while one judge believed this decision was incorrect and would have allowed the evidence.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-413 & 415, Mark Anthony Herfurth appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Sex Offender Living within 2000 feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Herfurth was taken to court because he was accused of not registering as a sex offender and for living too close to a school after he had been convicted of a crime related to indecent exposure. In his earlier conviction, he had agreed to register as a sex offender for a certain number of years. However, when laws changed in 2007, it meant that people in his situation could be assigned a risk level and have to register for longer. Herfurth argued that he shouldn't be held to the new law because he had already completed his requirements from his original plea. The judge agreed with him and dismissed the charges, saying that the laws could not be applied to him retroactively. The State of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision. They believed that the new law should apply to Herfurth since he was still required to register as a sex offender. They argued that laws are meant to protect the public, and because he was registering at the time of the new law's change, he should follow the new rules. However, upon review, the court decided that the lower court did not make a mistake. They concluded that the 2007 law was a significant change and should only apply going forward, not backward. The court also stated that applying the 2007 law to Herfurth after his original plea would have changed his obligations unfairly. Therefore, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges against Herfurth, stating that they have a duty to interpret laws as they were intended at the time of the original guilty plea. The dissenting judge felt differently, believing that the law should have applied to Herfurth based on the new requirements.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug possession and distribution. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that evidence obtained during a search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Johnson should be suppressed. Johnson dissented. The case started when police met with an informant who said they could buy methamphetamine from Armstrong. The police observed a controlled purchase of drugs and later obtained a search warrant for Armstrong's home. They executed this search warrant a few days later and found Armstrong and Johnson in a car outside his residence, where they discovered several drug-related items. Both Armstrong and Johnson hired the same lawyer and filed motions to suppress the evidence from the car search. The district court agreed with their argument that the police had not executed the search warrant immediately, as the warrant required. Because of this, the court decided the search was not valid. The appeals court looked into whether the district court had made a mistake. They decided that the court did not abuse its discretion and confirmed the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence. This means that the evidence collected during the search could not be used against them in court. The court emphasized that the terms of the warrant were not followed as required. The ruling highlighted the importance of following legal procedures when executing search warrants. In summary, Armstrong's appeal was not successful, and the ruling to suppress the evidence was upheld.
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. S-2012-244, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Sonya Renee Wichert for unlawful purchase of pseudoephedrine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the case against Wichert. One judge dissented. Wichert faced eleven counts related to breaking the Meth Registry Act, which had come into effect on November 1, 2010. She had a previous conviction for possession of methamphetamine and was on probation. The case stemmed from an investigation that revealed she purchased pseudoephedrine after the law took effect, leading to her arrest. At her preliminary hearing, Wichert argued that the law shouldn't apply to her because her conviction happened before the law was in place. The judge agreed with her, stating there could be serious problems with fairness if the law was applied to her without her having been informed of it. Because of this lack of notice about the new law, the district court decided to dismiss the charges. The court referenced a previous case, Wolf v. State, which established that individuals who are on probation when a law takes effect must be notified if it affects them. Without proper notice regarding the Meth Registry Act, the court ruled that it would not be fair to hold Wichert accountable under this law. Thus, the overall decision was to uphold the dismissal of her case because applying the law without notification did not meet the necessary fairness requirements.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-112, Gene Freeman Price appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Freeman Price was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intention of committing a crime. He was given a sentence of twelve years in prison. However, Price argued that he did not fully understand his rights before he decided to represent himself in court instead of having a lawyer help him. The court looked closely at the case. They believed the trial court did not do a good job explaining to Price the risks of going to court alone without a lawyer. This meant that Price could not have truly given up his right to a lawyer because he didn't really understand what that meant. The judges decided that because of this mistake, Price's right to have a lawyer was violated. Since this was such a serious error and affected the whole case, the court said they could not ignore it. They ruled that the earlier decision needed to be thrown out, and Price should get a new trial where he could have a lawyer help him.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-1115, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction regarding defendants accused of conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided that the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was not enough to support a conspiracy charge against the defendants. The ruling of the lower court was affirmed, and one judge dissented. In this case, the defendants were accused of agreeing to a bribe related to an election. The State claimed that one defendant offered the other a job to persuade her not to run for a Senate seat. The court looked carefully at the evidence and found that there was not enough proof to show that the defendants had a plan to commit a crime together. Thus, their appeal was rejected, and the original decision was upheld, concluding that the charge of conspiracy was not valid based on the information provided.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-563, Ronnie Lee Martin appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs After Former Conviction of Three Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. One judge dissented. Ronnie Lee Martin was found guilty after a bench trial, meaning there was no jury, and received a life sentence without the chance for parole. Martin's case stemmed from a traffic stop where drugs were discovered in his possession. The police officer who stopped the car noticed Martin acting suspiciously and later found a substantial amount of crack cocaine during a search of Martin's belongings. Initially, Martin was charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, which could have resulted in a sentence of four years to life. However, a plea deal of ten years was offered but not accepted due to Martin's attorney advising against it. Later, after more evidence was presented, Martin was charged with the more serious crime of trafficking, which led to a mandatory life sentence without parole. Martin claimed his attorney failed to provide effective counsel, particularly in advising him about the plea deal. The court found his attorney's performance to be deficient, as he did not read important documents that would have clarified the seriousness of Martin’s situation. Additionally, the attorney failed to prepare properly for both pretrial motions and the trial itself. The court looked at the history of Martin's defense lawyer and noted that this attorney had been previously disciplined for ineffective practices, which raised concerns about Martin's representation throughout the trial. The judge stated that Martin was denied a fair trial, and as a result, the court had no choice but to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. In summary, the court determined that due to many errors made by Martin's lawyer, he did not receive sufficient legal representation, and therefore, his convictions could not stand. Martin’s journey through the legal system was marked by these failings, which ultimately led to the court's decision to give him another chance to defend himself properly.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-914, Burdex appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified Burdex's sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Burdex was found guilty of dealing with a fake check, and the jury decided he should serve life in prison due to his past crimes. His appeal raised several issues, including whether he received a speedy trial, if the evidence against him was strong enough, and if the judge made mistakes during the trial. The court looked at the claim for a speedy trial and used a test from a previous case. They found that he was not denied this right. They also believed there was enough evidence that showed Burdex knew the check was fake since he gave different reasons for having it. Burdex argued that the state shouldn't have used some of his old felonies to lengthen his sentence. However, the court found that the state followed the rules correctly. They said that the past felonies were not too old to be used in deciding his punishment. The court also looked into whether Burdex had good lawyers. They found no evidence that his lawyers did a bad job. Additionally, the judges decided the trial court was correct in not explaining what a life sentence meant. When it came to his sentence, the court felt that life imprisonment was too harsh for a non-violent crime. They noticed that the jury seemed to struggle with the punishment and had questions about how to decide it. Because of this, they decided to change his sentence to twenty years instead of life. In summary, the court agreed with the trial's decision to convict Burdex but felt the punishment should be lighter. One judge did not agree with changing the sentence and believed the jury's decision on punishment should stay as it was.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0801, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Wendel Hughes for preventing a witness from giving testimony, use of a firearm while committing a felony, and false reports of crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that dismissed the charges of preventing a witness from testifying and use of a firearm while committing a felony. One judge dissented. Wendel Hughes was charged in Sequoyah County with three serious offenses. During the preliminary hearing, the magistrate determined that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges of preventing a witness from giving testimony or using a firearm during a felony. The State thought this decision was wrong and appealed the ruling. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to see if there is likely enough evidence to believe that a crime happened and that the accused person committed it. The court reviewed the case to check if the lower court made a mistake in its decision. They found that the evidence the State provided was not strong enough to show that Hughes committed the crimes. So, they decided not to change the ruling of the lower court. The court affirmed the dismissal of the two counts against Hughes, meaning they agreed with the previous decision. The judge who disagreed with the majority opinion thought that the evidence should have been enough to go to trial. He argued that the evidence suggested Hughes had intentions to stop the witness from providing testimony and that a jury should decide if he was guilty based on all the facts of the case. In summary, Hughes's charges were dismissed because the courts did not find enough evidence of his wrongdoing based on the information presented during the preliminary hearing.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-0467, a person appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm after a previous conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling which found that the application of a new law to this case was unconstitutional. One judge dissented. To explain further, the person involved, known as the appellee, was charged after a new law was enacted that changed the rules about possessing firearms for people with past convictions. Originally, under the law at the time the appellee completed his past sentence, he was allowed to possess a firearm. However, the law changed in 2010 to make it more difficult for people with certain convictions to have firearms, requiring them to wait ten years instead of just having their rights restored after finishing their sentence. The appeal began after a magistrate found that using the new law against the appellee was unfair because it changed the rules after he had already completed his legal obligations. The court needed to determine if this application of the law was considered an ex post facto law, which is illegal under the Constitution because it punishes someone for actions that were not against the law when they were done. The appellee had completed his deferred sentence successfully and had regained the right to possess a firearm. The court recognized that the law should not punish people for actions that were legal at the time they were done, and applying the new law to the appellee would violate this principle. Therefore, the decision from the lower court was upheld, meaning the appellee would not face penalties from the new law. The ruling confirmed that once someone has completed their deferred sentence, they should not have to follow new rules that were created after the fact regarding possession of firearms.
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. S 2011-0024, Joel Christion Aranda appealed his conviction for multiple charges including Use of a Vehicle in Discharge of a Weapon and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed several counts against Aranda. One judge dissented, believing there was enough evidence to proceed with some of the charges.