In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0523, Michelle Renea Runco appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her suspended sentence and send the case back for a new hearing with legal representation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-572, Earsley appealed her conviction for uttering two or more bogus checks exceeding $500.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that accelerated her deferred sentence. The decision was based on the finding that the lower court did not consider Earsley's ability to pay restitution and court costs, which Earsley argued was a necessary factor in determining whether her failure to pay was willful. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0510, Edward Q. Jones appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation. One judge dissented. Edward Jones had previously pled guilty to domestic abuse and was sentenced to a few years in jail, with most of that time suspended, meaning he wouldn’t serve it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he had problems following those rules, which led the State to ask the court to revoke his suspended sentence. There were two main hearings regarding this. In the first hearing, the judge found that Edward had broken the probation rules and took away three and a half years of his suspended time. Edward didn't appeal that decision. Later, the State filed another request to revoke his sentence, saying he had not followed the rules again. In the second hearing, the judge decided to take away all of his suspended time. Edward argued that he should have had a lawyer to help him at the hearing, which he really wanted. He felt that the short time between being told he could have a lawyer and the date of his hearing was not enough time for him to get one. He argued that he was unfairly treated without a lawyer and that he shouldn’t have to suffer because he missed a deadline due to a lack of money for the application fee to get a lawyer. The State countered by saying that since Edward didn't file for a court-appointed lawyer by the deadline set by the judge, he gave up his right to have one. They also argued that the right to have a lawyer at a revocation hearing is not a constitutional right but a statutory right. They said he didn't get the lawyer because he wasn't trying hard enough to get one and was just delaying things. The judges looked at earlier cases where people were found to have given up their right to a lawyer because they didn't act quickly enough to get one. They concluded that while there was a short delay for Edward, the reasons didn't clearly show he was deliberately trying to delay his hearing. They pointed out that Edward might not have known what he was doing in waiving his right to counsel, and the judge didn't look into whether he could have afforded a lawyer or not. After reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the court decided that Edward was not fairly represented when he attended his hearing without a lawyer. They noted that there was conflicting testimony from police officers about the events leading to his probation violations, which made it difficult for them to feel confident about the decision made at the hearing. Because of these issues, the court reversed the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent it back to the district court to hold a new hearing where Edward could have a lawyer or show he knew he was giving up that right clearly. In doing so, they ordered that any confusion or problems found in the previous record should be clarified.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-531, Jim Evans appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug and embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court and vacate part of his sentence. One judge dissented. On November 29, 2006, Jim Evans pleaded guilty to two crimes: possession of a controlled drug after having a felony conviction, and embezzlement. The court sentenced him to five years for possession and one year for embezzlement, with both sentences running at the same time. He could avoid serving this time if he successfully completed a Drug Court program, but if he failed, he would have to serve his sentences. On May 22, 2008, Evans was taken out of the Drug Court program, leading to his appeal. He claimed three main issues: First, during his hearing, he wasn't properly confronted with a witness against him, and his lawyer let him say things that made him look guilty. Second, he thought the court made a mistake by considering evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed. Third, he argued the court couldn't extend his probation past his original sentence. About the first two points, Evans said his lawyer should have stopped the officer from speaking about what another person said. He contended this wasn't fair. The court examined his claims and found that the rights in Drug Court are not as extensive as in normal criminal trials. It noted that some statements made by the officer were acceptable under the law. For the last point, Evans pointed out that his one-year sentence had ended, and the court didn’t have the authority to give him more time. The State, which was appealing against him, admitted that it was a mistake to extend his probation beyond his original sentence. Ultimately, the court agreed with Evans on his last point and decided to change the records by vacating the one-year sentence for embezzlement. However, the court also confirmed the decision to remove Evans from the Drug Court program.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.