In OCCA case No. S-2011-774, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of DeJear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the previous ruling, which found there was not enough evidence to prove that DeJear was under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, making the charges not applicable. One judge dissented from this opinion.
In OCCA case No. M 2010-1026, Luck appealed his conviction for Malicious Mischief. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order, remanding the matter for a hearing to determine the correct amount of restitution. No dissent was registered.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0023, David Franco appealed his conviction for several charges related to using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, feloniously pointing a firearm, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that dismissed some of the charges against him. One judge dissented.
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed several counts against Aranda.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.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-208, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision made by a Special Judge regarding the suppression of evidence connected to Shea Brandon Seals. In an unpublished decision, the court upheld the Special Judge's ruling, agreeing that there was not enough reason to stop Seals' vehicle. The court found that the evidence supported the decision that Seals did not break any traffic laws, and thus, the law enforcement officer did not have a valid reason to stop him. The State also tried to argue that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop, but this argument was presented for the first time during the appeal, so the court did not consider it. The decision to deny the State's appeal was supported by competent evidence and adhered to legal standards. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-774, John Calvin Winrow, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug With Intent to Distribute (Cocaine) and Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Winrow's convictions but remand the case to the district court for a ruling on whether his sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. One judge dissented regarding the remand for sentencing.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing evidence. Margaret Ann Brumfield was also charged with the same crime in a companion case numbered S-2009-862, and the same ruling applied. The case began when Trooper Johnson stopped the vehicle driven by Mr. Brumfield for speeding and discovered he did not have a valid driver's license. Mrs. Brumfield was a passenger in the vehicle. During the stop, the officer suspected Mr. Brumfield was under the influence of a drug, so he had both Brumfields sit in the patrol car while he searched the vehicle. Initially, he found nothing, and he allowed them to leave. However, after listening to a conversation the couple had in the patrol car, he suspected there might be drugs under the passenger seat. When he searched again, he found methamphetamine. The State appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that the officer did have the right to search the vehicle due to Mr. Brumfield’s behavior and suspected drug use. However, the court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that reasonable suspicion (which the trooper had) is not enough for probable cause. The initial search was not justified, leading to the suppression of the evidence found later. Thus, the court's final decision affirmed the district court’s ruling that the search was unreasonable, and therefore, the evidence obtained could not be used in court against the Brumfields.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle should be suppressed. The ruling was based on the fact that the officer did not have enough probable cause to conduct the search after initially letting the Brumfields go. In this case, one judge dissented. In OCCA case No. S-2009-862, Margaret Ann Brumfield also appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. The decision in her case followed the same reasoning as her husband's case, reaffirming the district court's decision to suppress evidence. The judge's ruling was similarly supported by the reasoning that the officer lacked the necessary probable cause for the searches conducted. Again, one judge dissented on the conclusion reached by the majority. The essential facts involved a traffic stop initiated because of speeding and a lack of a valid driver's license. The officer suspected drug use and searched the vehicle, which initially produced no evidence. The second search resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine after a recording revealed incriminating conversation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer's actions were not justified legally, leading to the suppression of the evidence collected.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-1176, Don Wayne Townsend Jr. appealed his conviction for Omission to Provide for Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case. No one dissented. In this case, Townsend was initially charged with not providing for his child, which was a violation of the law. However, after the state presented its evidence, the trial judge decided that the evidence was not strong enough to continue the trial. The state then sought to appeal this decision, asking if the judge made a mistake in dismissing the case. The court looked carefully at the situation and found that the state's question was not really about the law, but rather about whether the evidence was enough to prove Townsend's guilt. The court explained that proving someone is guilty requires showing they willfully did not support their child for a long time. They also stated that it must be shown that the person had a legal obligation to pay child support. Ultimately, the court agreed with the trial judge's decision and found no error in dismissing the case against Townsend. This means that the matter was closed and he could not be tried again for this charge. The court's decision was recorded, and they indicated that the dismissal order would stand.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-667, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction concerning Christy Anne Selders. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the decision of the District Court of Tulsa County, which dismissed one of the charges against Selders. One judge dissented. The case began when Selders was charged with trying to make illegal drugs and also for defrauding a hotel. During the preliminary hearing, the judge had to decide if the police had a good reason to search Selders' hotel room and if they could use the evidence found there. After the State presented its case, Selders argued that the police search was not legal because they didn't have the right to enter the hotel room without proper permission. The judge agreed with Selders and decided to dismiss the charge related to manufacturing drugs, saying that the evidence was not strong enough to link Selders to the crime. The State didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal, saying the judge made mistakes. They believed that Selders had given permission for the search and that there was enough evidence to try her. Another judge reviewed the case and eventually decided to uphold the original judge's decision. This judge agreed that the police may have thought they had permission to search, but still, they couldn’t prove that Selders was connected to any illegal activity in the hotel room. After reviewing everything, the court decided not to change the first ruling. They said that the dismissal of the charge was correct and that there was no abuse of discretion by the judges involved in the case. In the end, the court confirmed that the order to dismiss the charge against Selders was valid, meaning she would not face trial for that particular accusation.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1043, William D. Hibdon appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand his convictions. One judge dissented. Hibdon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to a total of 31 years in prison. The convictions were based on evidence found after police officers searched his home without a search warrant. The police had gone to Hibdon’s house after receiving a tip that he was making methamphetamine. When they arrived, they smelled ether, a chemical often used in meth production. After arresting Hibdon, one officer entered the house without a warrant and found more evidence. Hibdon argued that this search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, but this was denied by the trial court. The appeals court found that the officers had enough time to get a search warrant but did not do so. They decided that there was no immediate danger to the public that would justify the warrantless search. Since the officers did not meet the requirements for an emergency situation, the court believed Hibdon’s rights were violated. Therefore, the evidence obtained during the search could not be used against him. The court reversed Hibdon's convictions and sent the case back for further proceedings. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing that the police acted correctly in their search based on the circumstances they faced at the time. This dissenting opinion asserted that the smell of ether justified a limited check of the house for safety reasons. Overall, the majority decision emphasized the importance of obtaining a proper search warrant to protect individuals' rights, while the dissent highlighted the potential dangers law enforcement officers may face in similar situations.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-736, Russell Wayne Horn, Jr. appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and unlawful possession of a controlled drug (cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions due to an illegal search of his vehicle. One judge dissented. Russell Horn was found guilty by a jury of two drug-related charges: trafficking methamphetamine and possessing cocaine. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the trafficking charge and 19.5 years for the possession charge after a police search of his home and vehicle. On February 24, 2005, police executed a search warrant at Horn’s home. When they entered, they found a large sum of money and methamphetamine. When searching Horn’s vehicle with keys found in his apartment, an officer triggered the car alarm. While trying to turn off the alarm, he opened the hood of the car and discovered a bag containing more drugs. Horn argued that the search of his vehicle was illegal, asserting that the search warrant did not specifically mention the vehicle he owned. The trial court had denied his motions to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle, and Horn's appeal claimed this was wrong. The court acknowledged that a good search warrant must clearly identify what can be searched and where. It noted Horn's apartment was described in detail, but the vehicle was only vaguely referred to as a certain vehicle, which could apply to any car. The court found that this lack of specificity made the search unauthorized, leading to the conclusion that the search of Horn's car did not comply with the law. Also, the court considered whether the parked vehicle was part of Horn's home's surroundings, which would allow police to search it. The analysis looked at various factors, concluding that the parking lot was a shared space for multiple tenants and not closely associated with Horn's apartment in a way that would protect it under the Fourth Amendment. The State had argued that even if the warrant was insufficient, the search should still be valid under the good faith rule, which allows for legal searches conducted with honest belief in their legality. However, the court disagreed, stating that the police should have followed the law by specifically describing the vehicle in the warrant. Hence, the good faith exception should not apply in this situation. As a result of the improper search, the court reversed Horn's conviction related to drug trafficking and sent it back for a new trial. The conviction for possessing cocaine was also reversed, with instructions to dismiss that charge altogether. The decision was met with dissent from some judges who believed the officers had enough reasonable cause to search the vehicle based on what they knew about Horn’s activities and the illegal substance sales occurring from his home. These dissenting opinions highlighted that the circumstances surrounding the case should have justified the warrantless search of the vehicle.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-191, Hurst appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Hurst's sentence and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Hurst was found guilty of a crime involving inappropriate touching, which led to a sentence of 13 years in prison. Hurst raised four main arguments for his appeal: 1. He claimed the trial court did not give proper instructions to the jury, which made it unfair for him. 2. He argued that some evidence used against him in court was obtained in an illegal way, violating his rights. 3. He said that his attorney was not allowed to talk about certain things during closing arguments, which hurt his defense. 4. He believed that all these errors combined made his trial unfair. The court looked closely at all parts of the case, including the trial records and evidence. They found that Hurst deserved to have a new sentence because the jury had not been properly instructed, particularly about how much time they could decide to give him. This was his first offense and he should have been warned about the sentencing rules. The jury had asked for help with the sentencing, which meant they might have been confused. As for the other arguments, the court decided there weren’t any mistakes that would change the result of the case, like the refusal to give instruction on eyewitness identification or the claims about the way evidence was gathered. The court also agreed that the trial judge was right in limiting what Hurst's attorney could say during closing arguments. In summary, the court affirmed the guilty verdict but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for a new sentencing hearing where the jury would be properly instructed.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.
In OCCA case No. S-2005-890, Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno appealed their conviction for drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case against both defendants. One judge dissented. Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno were charged with several crimes, including trafficking illegal drugs and other drug-related offenses. On September 1, 2005, the District Court decided to dismiss the charges after finding that the traffic stop that led to the arrests was illegal. This decision went through different hearings, with judges initially disagreeing before ultimately siding with the defendants. The main reason for upholding the dismissal was that the officer lacked sufficient evidence to justify the traffic stop. The court reviewed whether the District Court had made any mistakes in handling the case. They concluded that the court had acted correctly by recognizing that there was no valid reason to stop the vehicle. In summary, the court supported the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case against Short and Ortuno because the initial traffic stop was not lawful. This meant that evidence gathered during that stop could not be used against them. One judge disagreed with this outcome, believing that the case should have been handled differently.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-569, Anthony Logan Merrick appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes involving minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of Merrick's convictions but reversed and dismissed certain specific counts. One judge disagreed with part of the decision. Merrick was tried and found guilty of 21 counts of sexual abuse of a child, 2 counts of sexual exploitation of a child, 15 counts of possession of obscene material involving minors, 4 counts of first-degree rape by instrumentation, and 8 counts of indecent or lewd acts with a minor child under sixteen. He received two life sentences and additional time for the other charges, which would run together, but separately from some other counts. Merrick raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the search warrant used to gather evidence was not valid because it did not show enough probable cause, and therefore, the evidence collected should not have been allowed in court. The court disagreed and explained that the affidavit (the document that supported the search) did provide a reasonable basis for the warrant. They determined that there was enough evidence to suggest a crime had taken place and that the search was lawful. He also claimed the warrant was not detailed enough in specifying what items could be seized. The court found that the warrant was correctly written to allow officers to identify the items they needed to seize. Merrick's next point was about double punishment. He argued he should not be punished for both the act of lewd molestation and the possession of related images, saying it was unfair. However, the court concluded that these were separate crimes, and thus he could be punished for both. Merrick also believed he should only be charged once for a large number of images found, but the court stated that there were indeed separate counts for each type of evidence that were introduced. Lastly, Merrick claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial, which hurt his case. The court said there wasn't enough evidence to show that he was harmed by his lawyer's performance. As a result, the court upheld the majority of the convictions while reversing some counts related to possession of images, ordering them to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. S 2005-702, Roley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse/Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling. One judge dissented. Michael Ray Roley was charged with child abuse/neglect. This case started in Creek County District Court on November 9, 2004. After some hearings, the judge let Roley go free by granting a motion to quash, which means the charges against him were dismissed before a trial could happen. The State of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting Roley, didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal it. They brought up three main points they believed were wrong with the judge's ruling. First, they argued that a previous case about a person’s right to confront witnesses didn’t apply to preliminary hearings. They said Roley was claiming a right to confront witnesses too early. Second, the State believed that Roley should not have been allowed to extend this right to preliminary hearings in such a broad way. Finally, they suggested that the court should consider the need to protect the child who was the victim in this case. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the trial judge’s decision. They highlighted that Oklahoma’s Constitution and laws give a person a right to confront witnesses during preliminary hearings, just like in a full trial. The court also noted that hearsay evidence, or what someone said out of court, could not be used unless the person who made the statement was unavailable. In this case, the children who were supposed to testify did not do so, making what the State presented unacceptable to prove that a crime had happened. The judges deliberated and concluded that the trial judge acted correctly when deciding not to allow the case to proceed based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the court supported the decision of the trial court to grant the motion to quash the charges against Roley, keeping him from being tried. In the end, the court affirmed the lower decision and stated that they would issue a mandate to finalize the ruling. One judge had a different opinion and disagreed, but the majority agreed that the earlier ruling should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-04-1106, Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful trafficking in cocaine base, amongst other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the fine associated with one of the charges. One judge dissented. Armstrong was found guilty of a series of crimes, including trafficking drugs and resisting arrest. He argued that there were mistakes made during his trial, such as the jury being instructed on two counts of resisting arrest when he believed there should only be one. He also claimed that his attorney didn’t provide enough evidence to support his case effectively. He asked the court to reduce his sentences and fine. After reviewing everything about the case, the court felt that there was no need to overturn the convictions. However, they agreed to reduce the fine related to his drug trafficking charge from $25,000 to $10,000. The court found that the evidence and decisions made during the trial were legally sound. In summary, while Armstrong’s appeal raised several issues, the court mostly found in favor of the original trial's outcome, except for the adjustment of the fine.
In OCCA case No. S-2005-657, the State of Oklahoma appealed a ruling related to two individuals who were accused of having marijuana with the intent to distribute, along with drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that excluded certain evidence. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The police received a report that someone smelled marijuana coming from a house. When an officer arrived at the scene, he also smelled the marijuana and entered the home without permission. He searched a few areas and found marijuana and a pipe. The two accused individuals stated that the police officer had no right to enter or search their home. Eventually, a search warrant was issued based on the officer's report of the smell of marijuana. However, during a preliminary hearing, it was decided that the initial search was illegal because the officer did not have permission to enter the house and there were no emergency reasons to justify his actions. The judge in the lower court decided that the evidence collected from the illegal search could not be used to support the search warrant, meaning that the search warrant itself could not stand. Since there was no valid reason to issue the search warrant without the evidence from the initial illegal search, the evidence collected after the warrant was also thrown out. The state argued that the smell of marijuana alone could be enough to justify the search warrant. Still, the judge said that strong evidence was needed and that the warrant was based too much on the illegal findings from the first search. This led the court to agree that the evidence against the accused individuals could not be used, affirming the earlier decision made by the lower court. In short, the court ruled that because the initial search was illegal, it weakened the case against the accused, and thus their evidence should not be included.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-688, Arthur Gerald Graves appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial with effective counsel. One judge dissented. Graves was convicted after a non-jury trial where he was found to have drugs in his possession. The police had noticed a lot of people going in and out of a hotel room and decided to investigate. When the police knocked on the door and were let in, Graves showed up with a bag in his hand. This made the officers suspicious. They arrested him and found drugs and cash on him. Graves claimed that the police did not have a good reason to search him or arrest him. He argued he was just carrying his keys when he knocked on the door. However, the trial court did not agree with him and allowed the evidence found to be used against him in court. During the appeal, Graves's main argument was that he did not receive good help from his lawyers. The court found that his lawyers did not do their job well, which affected the trial's outcome. They had three different attorneys, and their lack of teamwork hurt his defense. The judges noted that the defense lawyers failed to present important evidence that could have helped Graves and that they made some arguments that did not relate to the case. The court stated that the mistakes made by Graves's lawyers made it hard to trust the trial's results. Because of this, they decided that Graves deserved another chance to have a proper trial with the right legal help. Therefore, the court reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1241, Eddie Don Milligan appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Milligan's conviction. One judge dissented. Milligan was found guilty by a jury of growing marijuana on his property and was given a six-year prison sentence. He appealed the decision, stating that there were multiple mistakes in his trial, including the improper use of evidence obtained from a search of his property that he believed violated his rights to privacy. The case started when agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics were flying in a helicopter looking for marijuana. Due to engine trouble, they flew over Milligan's property and thought they saw marijuana plants. They did not check for sure but recorded the spot and returned the next day, where they saw only corn. They then obtained a search warrant and found some marijuana leaves near a burn pile, but nothing else that indicated marijuana was being grown. Milligan argued that the helicopter flight over his property violated his right to privacy. The court agreed, saying he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his yard. The agents hadn't done enough to confirm they saw marijuana before getting the warrant. In the end, the court ruled that Miligan's rights were violated and reversed his conviction, sending the case back for further proceedings. The other arguments he made about his trial mistakes were not addressed since this decision resolved the main issue.
In OCCA case No. M-2004-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was stopped by a police officer early in the morning because his car was parked in a lot with its lights on, near a closed restaurant. The officer got suspicious due to a series of burglaries happening in the area recently. When the officer approached the car, it began to move. The officer then decided to stop the vehicle to ask what the appellant was doing there. During the trial, the appellant argued that the stop was illegal. He believed that the officer did not have enough reason to suspect that he was doing something wrong. The officer admitted during the hearing that he did not know for sure if the appellant was involved in criminal activity when he made the stop. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the officer did not have a good reason to think the appellant was doing anything suspicious. They pointed out that the appellant's actions could easily be seen as innocent. The conclusion was that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion, which is necessary to make a legal stop, and therefore the evidence collected after the stop should not have been used against the appellant. Ultimately, the court reversed the conviction, meaning that the case would not proceed further and the appellant's charges would be dismissed. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that the officer had good reasons to make the stop based on the circumstances around the time and location.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-939, the appellant appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentences for both convictions to seven years each, affirming the judgment in other respects. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-149, a juvenile, referred to as #x, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the juvenile court's order certifying #x as an adult for possession of methamphetamine but vacated the certification regarding possession of drug paraphernalia. The opinion was agreed upon by all judges, with none dissenting. The case starts with #x being about seventeen years old when he was charged with having methamphetamine and paraphernalia related to drugs. The state wanted to treat #x as an adult, so they asked the court to certify him. After a hearing, the judge decided that #x should indeed be tried as an adult for both charges. #x then appealed the decision, claiming several things were wrong. First, he believed the court made a mistake when it didn't throw out the evidence found on him. #x argued that this evidence was obtained through an unreasonable search, which is not allowed. However, the court found that the police officer had a good reason to search him because of how #x was acting. Thus, the court allowed the evidence to be used. Next, #x argued that the judge shouldn't have decided that he couldn’t be helped or rehabilitated in the juvenile system. The court looked at #x's history and found that he had been in trouble before, had problems with drugs, and was close to turning eighteen. Given these facts, the court agreed with the judge's decision to certify #x as an adult because they felt that #x might not improve in the juvenile system. Finally, #x claimed his lawyer didn’t help him properly, saying the lawyer should have asked for more time to prepare for the hearing and should have provided more evidence on his behalf. However, the court decided that #x did not show how this would have changed the outcome and that these claims were not enough to prove the lawyer was ineffective. In the end, the court decided to allow the charge of possession of methamphetamine to be treated as an adult crime, but they said that the charge for possession of drug paraphernalia should not be. Thus, they upheld part of the decision but overturned part of it too.