Proposition of Error Archives - Page 5 of 5

F 2002-532

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 3, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-532, James Jermaine Woodfork appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse, and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold some of his convictions while reversing others and sending them back to the District Court for dismissal. One member of the court dissented. Woodfork had been found guilty of various charges after a jury trial. He received significant sentences for his convictions, including 25 years for Kidnapping and 30 years for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. However, he raised concerns about double jeopardy, arguing that his multiple convictions for similar offenses involving different victims should not have occurred. The court agreed with him on some counts and reversed those convictions. Additionally, the court examined claims of trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct. Even though the prosecutor made some inappropriate comments during the trial, the court concluded that these did not significantly affect the overall fairness of the trial or the jury's decision, so they did not lead to a reversal of the sentence. In summary, some of Woodfork's convictions were upheld, while others were reversed, and he was given a chance for those to be dismissed. This case highlights important legal principles about multiple charges and the rights of defendants in a criminal trial.

F-2002-323

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 28, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-323, David Dean Wichita appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. The case focused on whether Wichita had properly waived his right to a jury trial. The court found that there was not enough evidence in the record to show that he understood and agreed to give up this important right. The State agreed that this was a mistake and that the case needed to be looked at again. The judges explained that a person must clearly show they are giving up their right to a jury trial. There was no proof in the record that Wichita made this choice himself or that he did it knowingly and wisely. Because of this error, the judges decided that Wichita should have a new trial.

F-2003-22

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 12, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-22, Desean Terrell Poore appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Murder and Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Manslaughter should be reversed and dismissed, as it was found to be double punishment for a single action. The court also ordered corrections to the judgment's wording concerning the prior felony conviction.

RE-2001-947

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-947, the appellant appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the matter to the District Court of Noble County for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The story begins when the appellant entered a guilty plea for indecent exposure in 1991 and was given a suspended sentence. This means he wouldn't serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, in 1999, the State said he had committed another crime while on probation and wanted to take away his suspended sentence. During the revocation hearing, it was discovered that when the appellant was sentenced, he should not have been given a suspended sentence at all because of his prior convictions. According to Oklahoma law, if someone has three or more felony convictions, they aren't allowed to receive a suspended sentence. The court noted that both the appellant and the State were aware of his criminal history, and no evidence was presented to show that he was eligible for a suspended sentence. In fact, the plea agreement that he entered into was not legal under the law. Because of these issues, the court decided that the appellant's original judgment and sentence should be vacated, meaning it was canceled. This allows the appellant a chance to withdraw his guilty plea, which he can do if he wants to go to trial for the indecent exposure charge again. If he chooses not to withdraw his plea, he will then be sentenced again, but this time, it will be done right and in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the court took this action to ensure that everything was done fairly and legally, giving the appellant a proper opportunity to have his case heard correctly in the District Court. The ruling was important in maintaining the rules around sentencing and ensuring that people with multiple convictions are treated based on the law.

RE-2001-1120

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 15, 2002
Post category:RE

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.

F-2001-934

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 25, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-934, Guy Franklin Randell appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for further proceedings regarding certain fees. One judge dissented. Randell was found guilty in a bench trial, meaning a judge, not a jury, decided his case. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years of that suspended, which means he won’t have to serve those five years if he meets certain conditions. He also had to pay a fine and other costs related to his court case. Randell raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that the testimony of the victim was not reliable and needed more support to be believed. The court looked at the evidence and decided that while there were some inconsistencies in the victim's statements, they were still enough to uphold the conviction. He also challenged the costs that were added to his sentence, particularly the fees for his time in jail. The court concluded that even though the prosecution had requested these fees, there was not enough evidence to support how they were calculated. Therefore, the court decided to remove those specific fees and send the case back for a hearing to figure out the correct costs. In summary, the court upheld Randell’s conviction but disagreed with some financial aspects of his sentencing, which will be reassessed in the lower court.

F-2001-985

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-985, Karyn Jo Webb appealed her conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Karyn Jo Webb was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. She believed her lawyer did not help her properly during the trial. Karyn said her lawyer did not look into important medical evidence that might show she was innocent. She also thought her lawyer did not question the state’s medical experts well and missed gathering good character references that could help her side of the case. The court looked carefully at all the information from the trial and decided that Karyn’s lawyer did not perform well. They concluded that he was not able to act as a good defense lawyer, which is why Karyn should get a new trial. The main issue was that without a medical expert, her lawyer could not effectively fight against the accusations that she harmed the child. Therefore, the court said Karyn deserved another chance to prove her case.

F-2001-230

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 27, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-230, Shihee Hason Daughrity appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon and one count of False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on the robbery counts but reversed the conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Daughrity was tried along with another person and was found guilty of robbing someone while using a dangerous weapon and falsely claiming to be someone else. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison and also made him pay fines. Daughrity thought the trial was unfair and wanted to appeal. The court looked at the reasons Daughrity gave for why he thought he should win his appeal. He questioned whether there was enough proof for the False Personation charge because there wasn't clear evidence that he impersonated an actual person. The court reviewed previous cases to understand what counts as False Personation. They found that in this case, there wasn’t enough proof to show he impersonated someone who could be harmed by his actions. While the evidence seemed to show he used a fake name to escape responsibility for his actions, the instructions given to the jury were incomplete. Because of this, Daughrity's conviction for False Personation was reversed, which means he shouldn’t have been found guilty of that charge based on how the jury was instructed. However, they kept his convictions for robbery since they were clear and backed by enough evidence. In conclusion, while Daughrity's robbery convictions stayed, he won on the False Personation count. The judges made sure that the right procedures were followed, highlighting how important it is for juries to have complete and clear instructions when they are deciding on guilt.

F-2001-49

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 7, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-49, John Henry Throckmorton appealed his conviction for manufacturing and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession. One judge dissented. Throckmorton was found guilty by a jury for two counts related to methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 20 years for manufacturing and 10 years for possession. However, Throckmorton argued that being convicted of both offenses was unfair because the laws say a person cannot be punished twice for the same action. The court agreed with him about the possession charge, stating that since the evidence for both charges was the same, it was wrong to convict him for both. As a result, they dismissed the possession conviction while keeping the manufacturing conviction.

RE-2000-1470

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 27, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1470, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided that while the appellant's suspended sentence was properly revoked, the trial court should have clarified whether the sentence was to be served at the same time as other offenses or one after the other. One judge dissented.

F-2000-1138

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1138, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involved David Land Ashlock, who was found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon after a jury trial in Creek County. The jury sentenced him to forty years in prison and a fine of ten thousand dollars. Mr. Ashlock raised three issues on appeal about his trial. First, he argued that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing a defense instruction about defending another person. Second, he claimed that he was denied a fair trial because the jury convicted him of a crime that was not in the original charges against him. Finally, he said the prosecutor made an error by trying to explain the term reasonable doubt during the trial. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with Mr. Ashlock on the second point. They found that he was wrongfully convicted of a crime that was not explicitly charged against him. The original charges were about first-degree manslaughter, but during the trial, the jury was instructed on Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon without Mr. Ashlock’s consent. The court said that when a defendant objects to a lesser crime being included in the instructions, they should have the right to decide to stick with the main charge only. Mr. Ashlock’s lawyer had clearly objected, and the trial court should have respected his choice not to include the lesser charge of Assault and Battery. Because of this error, the court decided that Mr. Ashlock did not receive a fair trial. They concluded that the trial court had made a mistake, which warranted reversing his conviction. As a result, the court instructed to dismiss the case entirely.

F-2000-939

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 20, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-939, Tony Guinn appealed his conviction for Workers' Compensation Fraud. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, arguing that one of the counts should be reversed due to a violation of double jeopardy, stating that there was only one claim for benefits which led to two misrepresentations.

F 2000-740

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 6, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-740, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from three and a half years to two years imprisonment. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case involved the appellant trying to escape from a private prison that was not officially recognized as a penitentiary. The court determined that the appellant should have been charged under a specific law concerning attempted escapes from non-penitentiary facilities. After reviewing the case, the judges concluded that while the conviction was valid, the original sentence was excessive since the appropriate law related to his actions was different than what was originally applied.

F-2000-617

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 2, 2001
Post category:F

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.

F-2000-796

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-796, Ronald Phipps appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine (as a subsequent offense), possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the $1,000 fine for the possession of marijuana but affirmed all other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented on the issue of the fine.

F 2000-292

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 24, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-292, Joe Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug (Methamphetamine) and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence for the weapon charge. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a felony. At his trial, he was sentenced to 30 years for the drug charge and 20 years for the weapon charge. He raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that the court did not correctly explain the state’s need to prove his past convictions. Second, he claimed the jury was misinformed about the punishment ranges for the second charge. Third, he said the jury was not correctly told about the punishments for the drug offense. The court looked carefully at all the evidence and arguments presented. They decided that the way the jury was instructed about the drug charges was correct. However, they agreed that the sentence for the weapon charge should be less severe based on their interpretations of the law, setting it to the minimum of two years instead of the original twenty. One judge disagreed with the decision to lessen the sentence for the weapon charge, feeling that the jury’s sentence should be upheld. The final conclusion was that while the main conviction was upheld, the penalty for possession of a weapon was reduced.

RE 2000-0688

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2001
Post category:RE

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.

RE-2000-1010

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1010, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, failure to affix a tax stamp, unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful use of a police radio, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences but also ordered that the sentences for two specific charges be modified to ensure they were within the legal limits set by statute. One judge dissented.

RE-2000-1034

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1034, an individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana in the presence of a minor child. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the decision to revoke part of the individual’s suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual was given a ten-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty in 1996. However, in 2000, the court found that he had violated the terms of his probation. The judge determined that the individual had committed offenses, including driving with a suspended license, and had also failed to make required payments for fines and costs. The individual argued that the court based its decision on prior allegations that the state had withdrawn. However, the court found that the individual did not provide sufficient legal reasons why those prior allegations couldn’t be used again. It also noted that the individual had not made required payments for his fines, having made less than one payment each year during the probation period. The judge emphasized that the individual had signed agreements for payment plans based on his ability to pay. Because he failed to follow through with these payments and was found to have violated other terms of his probation, the judge concluded there was enough reason to find that the individual had intentionally failed to comply. In the final decision, the court affirmed the revocation of a part of the individual’s sentence. However, it noted that the judge had improperly issued a new sentence instead of just executing the previous one. Therefore, while the revocation stood, the court ordered the lower court to correct this issue by properly recording the revocation without imposing a new judgment.

RE 2000-0434

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 9, 2001
Post category:RE

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.