Procedural Error

F-2018-349

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-349, John Albert Broomhall appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence, but vacated the order of restitution and remanded the case for a restitution hearing. One judge dissented. Broomhall was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to one year in jail and a fine of $5000. He raised several claims in his appeal. First, he argued that the State did not provide enough evidence to prove that he committed the crime, which involved using a baseball bat to hurt someone. The court found that the jury had enough evidence to believe he did commit the crime. Next, Broomhall claimed he acted in self-defense, but the court ruled that he did not meet the burden of proof needed to show that his actions were justified. He also accused the prosecutor of misconduct during the trial, but the court decided that nothing the prosecutor did affected the fairness of the trial. Broomhall argued that the jury was given incorrect instructions, but the court found the instructions were proper. He also believed that the trial court made a mistake in how it ordered restitution for the victim's losses. The court agreed that the restitution order was not done correctly and needed to be revisited. Broomhall claimed he had ineffective assistance from his attorney, but the court found no basis for this claim, stating that the actions of his counsel did not harm his case. Lastly, Broomhall contended that there were numerous errors that, together, made his trial unfair; however, the court concluded that the only issue needing correction was the restitution order. In summary, while the court upheld Broomhall's conviction, it sent the restitution issue back for further consideration.

Continue ReadingF-2018-349

F-2017-1104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1104, Joseph Johnson appealed his conviction for first degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Joseph Johnson was found guilty of killing Quavis Trae Cato during an argument over a car. The jury sentenced Johnson to life in prison without parole. The incident happened on October 10, 2016, when Johnson shot Cato 14 times, after a dispute over a stolen car. Witnesses testified that Johnson was armed with two guns and returned to the argument after briefly leaving the scene. During the trial, Johnson's defense argued for instructions on lesser charges of manslaughter, claiming he acted in the heat of passion or self-defense. However, the court found no evidence that Cato provoked Johnson sufficiently to warrant such instructions. The judges decided that Johnson escalated the situation by bringing guns into the argument and that simply being angry or upset does not justify the use of deadly force. Johnson also claimed that the prosecutor's closing arguments contained misconduct, asserting that they misled the jury about the facts and the law of self-defense, but the court found no errors that affected the fairness of the trial. Finally, Johnson’s defense argued that his lawyer didn't perform adequately by not presenting expert testimony about psychological conditions that might have affected his perception of the situation. However, the court concluded that even if the lawyer's performance was deficient, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial because Johnson had initiated the conflict while armed. In summary, the court upheld the conviction for murder, concluding that Johnson acted with intent and malice when he killed Cato. The judges agreed that there was no basis for a lesser charge or for claims of ineffective counsel. Overall, the ruling was in favor of maintaining the original sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1104

C-2014-270

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-270, Gabriel Brian Solis appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing before a different trial court. Solis had entered a plea where he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for reasons other than guilt. He was sentenced to eighty years in prison and a fine, needing to serve 85% of the time before being eligible for parole. After feeling he was unfairly treated, he tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial judge did not allow it. Solis then sought a higher court's intervention, which granted him a new hearing with a different lawyer. During the new hearing, it was found that the judge had shown bias against Solis and that his attorney had not done enough to protect his rights. This bias and the lack of effective legal representation were key reasons for the court’s ruling that Solis had been denied a fair trial. The court ultimately agreed that there were serious issues with how the plea was handled and the sentencing process. In summary, the court ruled in favor of Solis due to the unfairness he experienced in his initial trial, which led to the decision to have the case heard again, ensuring a fair process moving forward.

Continue ReadingC-2014-270

M-2013-918

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2013-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for direct contempt of court. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented, stating that while the court's warning was correct, the error in not allowing the appellant a chance to be heard was harmless because the appellant's sentence was later reduced.

Continue ReadingM-2013-918

S-2009-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing certain evidence. One judge dissented. Charles Stephens was arrested after police searched his apartment and found illegal drugs. He asked the court to remove the evidence from the case, saying the police had not followed the law when they obtained it. Initially, a lower court agreed to suppress some of the evidence but allowed some to remain. The State, unhappy with this decision, did not properly challenge the ruling. Later, another judge looked at the case and agreed that since the State did not appeal the initial ruling, they had to follow it. The judge then decided that the evidence not suppressed was also obtained through illegal means and thus had to be removed from consideration in the trial. The State argued against this decision, claiming the suppression ruling was wrong and that the defendant did not have a right to claim ownership of some of the evidence. However, the higher court, after reviewing the case, found that the lower court was correct in its rulings. The final decision was to keep the evidence suppressed, meaning it could not be used against the appellant in court.

Continue ReadingS-2009-567