In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1120, Mitchell Wayne Pate appealed his conviction for Felony Omission to Provide for a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. The State agreed that the appeal had merit, and the court changed the previous decision to state that only one year and six months of Pate's suspended sentence is revoked.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649, RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for revoking a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of the suspended sentences but instructed the lower court to correct the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved an individual who had previously been convicted of pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he did not have to go to jail right away if he followed the rules set by the court. Unfortunately, the appellant broke several of these rules, which led to the first part of his suspended sentence being revoked after five years. Later, he committed new offenses while still on probation, including not reporting to his probation officer and testing positive for drugs. Because of these additional violations, the state filed applications to revoke the remainder of his suspended sentence. In court hearings, the appellant was given chances to show he could follow the rules, but he did not meet the requirements set by the court, leading to the revocation of both suspended sentences. The court found there was enough evidence to show he had violated his probation. However, the appellant argued that the court made a mistake by sentencing him to serve a full five years in one part of his case when he had less than five years left. The state agreed with this point, and the appeals court ruled to correct the time he should actually serve. Overall, the court decided that the revocation was justified due to multiple violations. The case shows the importance of following court rules after a suspended sentence is given.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649 and RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation conditions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence; however, it instructed the lower court to make a correction regarding the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case started back in 1996 when the appellant took a plea deal for a charge related to pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended while he was on probation. However, by 1996, five years of this probation was revoked due to several violations. In 2000, the state accused the appellant of more violations, including failing to report to his probation officer, moving without notice, and using marijuana. The court initially delayed proceedings, offering a chance for the appellant to meet specific conditions like paying fees and performing community service, which if completed, would see the revocation dismissed. Later in June 2000, the appellant pleaded guilty to another charge related to neglecting to provide for a child, receiving another suspended sentence. Following this, the state claimed he violated his probation again by committing new offenses. In February 2001, further violations were noted which included again not paying fees or attending required programs. A hearing took place where the court ultimately decided to revoke all of the appellant's suspended sentences. The appellant argued that the court was wrong to revoke his entire sentence given the circumstances, but the court found sufficient evidence that he violated probation rules. The appeal confirmed that the appellant had multiple opportunities to meet the probation requirements but did not follow through. While the court affirmed the revocation, it recognized that the appellant’s remaining time on one of the sentences was less than what the trial court indicated and ordered a correction about it.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0351, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of the appellant, agreeing that the trial court made a mistake in ordering sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-180, Jason Lee Hunt appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Hunt's suspended sentence. One member of the court dissented. Jason Lee Hunt had originally been convicted for unlawfully possessing marijuana and had received a suspended sentence, which means he did not have to serve time in jail as long as he followed certain rules. However, he got in trouble again when he did not report to his probation officer, did not tell the officer when he moved, and missed payments he was supposed to make as part of his probation. The court held a hearing to discuss these issues. The judge determined that Hunt had clearly violated the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his entire suspended sentence. Hunt appealed this decision, arguing that the judge made some mistakes, like not properly checking if he could afford to make the payments and not giving him a fair chance to defend himself. After reviewing the case, the court found that there was enough proof that Hunt had not followed the rules of his probation. They agreed with the judge's decision to revoke his sentence but disagreed with the part where he was asked to pay for jail expenses. The court decided to remove those payment orders.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1429, Walker John Myers appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that the district court clarify the order. One judge dissented. Myers had originally received a sentence of one year in jail for each of the charges, with some time suspended. After an investigation, the court found he had violated the terms of his probation. The appeal focused on whether there was enough evidence for this decision, and on the clarity of the revocation order. The court found that Myers had previously admitted to violating his probation, which meant that the revocation was supported by evidence. However, it also noted that the order was unclear about how much of his remaining sentence was actually being revoked, leading to the requirement for a clearer explanation from the district court.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-319, Jan V. Stout appealed her conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court reversed her conviction and remanded the case. One judge dissented. Stout was charged with Grand Larceny in Pawnee County. She was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. However, the judge put her on probation instead of sending her to prison right away. Stout had to pay back $8,500, cover court costs, and spend 90 days in jail. Stout argued that the evidence against her was not good enough. She felt that the testimony from her accomplice, Jacqueline Thompson, was questionable and claimed that she was unfairly treated during the trial. Stout believed that the statements made by the prosecutor misled the jury about Thompson’s guilty plea deal, which affected her right to a fair trial. The court found that there was some evidence linking Stout to the crime, particularly the discovery of stolen items in her office. However, concerns were raised about Thompson’s credibility because the prosecutor had made incorrect statements about her plea deal during the trial. The prosecutor repeatedly said that Thompson's sentence was longer than it actually was, which could lead the jury to doubt Thompson's truthfulness. The judges agreed that the prosecutor's misleading statements about the plea deal were a serious problem. Because Thompson's testimony was crucial to Stout's case, and the jury might have viewed her differently if they had understood the deal correctly, the court determined that Stout's trial was unfair. In conclusion, Stout's conviction for Grand Larceny was reversed, meaning she would not serve time for that crime, and the case was sent back to the lower court for another trial.
In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1257, the appellant appealed her conviction for furnishing beer to a person under twenty-one years of age. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her suspended sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty and was sentenced to one year, which was suspended, meaning she would not have to serve time right away as long as she followed certain rules. However, later, the state said she had broken those rules and asked the court to revoke her suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge decided she had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail with a part of that sentence suspended. The appellant appealed this decision, saying the court did not have the right to change her original sentence and that there wasn't enough proof of her violation. She also argued that she didn't receive proper notice about the reasons for her revocation, which is important for due process. The court agreed with her on the fact that the state did not provide enough evidence to support the revocation of her sentence. Due to this, the court decided to reverse the previous decision and instructed the lower court to dismiss the revocation order.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1304, Michael Renee Powell appealed her conviction for manufacturing controlled dangerous substances (CDS), unlawful possession of methamphetamine, maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss the conviction for manufacturing CDS due to insufficient evidence. It noted that the conviction for maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs would be modified to a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The court affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the manufacturing charge, believing there was enough evidence to uphold that conviction.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1566, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession and distribution of controlled drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the order that suspended the appellant's sentences and remanded the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty of possessing cocaine, methamphetamine, and distributing drugs to a minor. These offenses happened on January 30, 1994, and the appellant entered guilty pleas on March 27, 1995. As part of a plea agreement, the state recommended a fifteen-year sentence for each charge, which was to be served concurrently. The court accepted the pleas and suspended the sentences under probation conditions. In 1998, the state sought to revoke the suspended sentences because the appellant was allegedly found in possession of methamphetamine. During the revocation hearing, the judge ordered the sentences to be revoked in full based on the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the case should be sent back to the lower court, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea, referencing a previous case for support. The court noted that the appellant had not previously disclosed several felony convictions before accepting his guilty plea, which raised questions about the validity of the initial suspended sentence. The court ruled that the suspensions were invalid due to legislative restrictions against suspending sentences for individuals with previous felony convictions. As a result, the court instructed the lower court to hold further proceedings consistent with the decision referenced in the previous case. Additionally, it was ordered that the appellant be given a chance to withdraw his guilty plea. If he chose to do so, the prior convictions would be vacated, allowing the state to prosecute him again if necessary. If he decided to keep the guilty plea, the sentences would be executed immediately, with credit given for the time already served. Ultimately, the court's decision led to the dismissal of remaining errors regarding the revocation orders, as they were deemed moot now that the suspension orders were vacated.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-617, Bernard Eugene Laster, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order of acceleration of Laster's sentences for the first two offenses but vacated the judgment for the third offense related to a tax stamp. There was no dissent.
In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0688, the individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision by the lower court and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The person had a suspended sentence because he had pleaded to a crime in 1997. His sentence meant that he would not go to jail right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke those rules, the court could revoke his suspended sentence and send him to jail. In April 2000, the state filed to revoke his suspended sentence. The hearing to decide this was supposed to happen soon, but due to scheduling issues, the hearing was delayed. The court did not hold the hearing within the required 20 days after the plea was entered. Because of this delay, the court found that they lost the authority to revoke the sentence. The appellate court reviewed the case and made the decision to reverse the lower court's ruling. They pointed out that the law clearly states the timeline for revocation hearings and that this timeline was not followed in this case. Thus, they sent the matter back to the lower court for further action.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-920, Robert Lerone Mims appealed his conviction for violating probation terms. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of three years of Appellant's suspended sentence and remand the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-252, Kenneth Bristol appealed his conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. No one dissented. Kenneth Bristol was sentenced to serve five years, with a part of the sentence suspended while he followed rules of probation. He had a tough time fulfilling the probation conditions. The state claimed he did not show up for appointments and failed to pay restitution. This led to an application to revoke his suspended sentence. When Bristol was arrested, the court held several hearings but did not finalize his case right away. There were discussions about his appeal, but it wasn’t clear whether it was processed correctly. The court noted that Bristol was not given a fair chance to appeal the earlier decision to reject his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The higher court found that there was not enough evidence to show his suspended sentence was revoked properly. They reversed the lower court's decision and told them to look into the case again, allowing Bristol another chance to appeal his previous decision.
In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0434, Jeremy Keith Wright appealed his conviction for participating in a riot and conspiring to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Jeremy Keith Wright had been found guilty of participating in a riot and conspiracy. He was given a chance to stay out of jail by having his sentences suspended for three years, along with some rules to follow. He also had to pay a fine and fees. Later, the State of Oklahoma wanted to take away his suspended sentences because they believed he violated the rules. On March 6, 2000, they filed a request, but Jeremy wasn’t given a hearing on this until March 28, which was more than the twenty days they were allowed according to the law. Jeremy argued that the court should not have held the revocation hearing after the twenty days were up without his permission. The judges looked carefully at this issue. They concluded that since the hearing was late and there was no proof that Jeremy agreed to wait longer, they could not uphold the revocation. Therefore, the court reversed the decision made by the trial court and sent the case back for more action according to their ruling.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-251, Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of Appellant's sentence to eight years rather than upholding the full revocation. Three judges dissented on the modification. Initially, the Appellant was given a deferred sentence and placed on probation with the requirement of attending sexual abuse counseling. After some time, his probation was revoked due to not following these rules. The court felt there was enough evidence to show he violated his probation rules. However, they believed the full revocation of his sentence was too harsh and modified it to only eight years, while still requiring him to follow the same probation rules set previously.
In OCCA case No. O-98-461, Johnnie Edward Romo appealed his conviction for False Declaration of Ownership and Embezzlement by Employee. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order and judgment that revoked his suspended sentences. No justices dissented. Johnnie Romo had originally pleaded guilty and received a suspended sentence for his crimes. However, the state later sought to revoke this suspended sentence after he did not comply with the rules of probation. The appeal focused on two main points: first, that the state took too long to act on the motion to revoke his sentence, and second, that there was a promise made regarding reducing sentences if he admitted to the allegations. The court reviewed the arguments and found that the state did not act quickly enough and allowed Romo's suspended sentences to expire without bringing him to court in a timely manner. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke the sentences and instructed that the case be dismissed.