Propositions of Error

J 2010-0788

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-0788, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that imposed an adult sentence and remand the case for sentencing as a Youthful Offender if the appellant is convicted. One judge dissented. The appellant, who was born on March 12, 1994, faced charges in the District Court of Muskogee County where he was labeled a Youthful Offender. A motion was filed by the State for an adult sentence, while the appellant sought to be treated as a juvenile. The court held a hearing, and the judge denied the appellant's request to be treated as a juvenile. The same judge also granted the State's request for an adult sentence. The appellant raised three main arguments on appeal. First, he claimed the written order for the adult sentence did not match what the judge said during the hearing. Second, he argued that the trial court did not show clear and convincing evidence to justify an adult sentence. Third, he said it was wrong for the court to deny his request to be treated as a juvenile. According to the law, to punish someone as an adult, the court must find strong evidence that the individual could not adequately be rehabilitated or that the public would be at risk. The court found that the trial judge did not make the necessary findings to support an adult sentence and actually believed the appellant could complete rehabilitation and that public safety would not be compromised. Therefore, the court agreed with the appellant that the decision to treat him as an adult was wrong, thus reversing that part of the judgment. However, regarding the second argument about treating him as a juvenile, the court disagreed. The judges felt the trial judge had enough reasons to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender instead of a juvenile. In conclusion, while the order for an adult sentence was reversed, the court confirmed that the decision to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender was appropriate. The case was sent back to the lower court to proceed with sentencing as a Youthful Offender if he is found guilty.

Continue ReadingJ 2010-0788

F-2009-530

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-530, Jacinda Simone Osborne appealed her conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to Second Degree Robbery. No one dissented. Osborne was found guilty of robbing someone in Tulsa County. The jury said she should serve fifteen years in prison and pay a $5000 fine. She felt that the trial did not go well for her. She raised three main points that she thought were errors. First, she believed the court should have explained to the jury what serious bodily injury meant. Second, she thought the jury should have been given the option to consider a lesser crime, Second Degree Robbery. Third, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to support the serious charge of First Degree Robbery. The court reviewed everything carefully. They looked at the facts of the case and the laws. They agreed with Osborne on her third point. Even though the victim was hurt during the robbery, the proof did not show that the robbery met the higher standard needed for First Degree Robbery. There were no serious injuries or threats that would elevate the crime from Second to First Degree. So, the court changed her conviction to Second Degree Robbery, which is a lesser charge. The court said her original sentence would stay the same. This means that while the serious charge was changed, she would still serve fifteen years in prison and pay the fine. Since they found merit in her third point, they did not need to decide on the first two points she raised. The conclusion was that Osborne's conviction was modified, but the punishment was upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2009-530

C-2010-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-77, Markeese Kreashawmn Ward appealed his conviction for Trafficking CDS and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Markeese Kreashawmn Ward was in court for committing serious crimes. On December 19, 2007, he said he was guilty to two charges: Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Because he was a young adult, the judge decided he could join a special program called the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. This program was supposed to give him a second chance, and his sentencing was scheduled for a year later, on December 19, 2008. When that day came, the judge decided that Markeese had not done well in the program, so he was punished with five months in jail. After his jail time, he was supposed to go into another program designed to help him. Later, on November 13, 2009, the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison for Trafficking and 5 years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running at the same time. Markeese didn't like the sentences he received and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court held a hearing and decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. Markeese believed there were two main reasons why he should be allowed to change his plea: 1. He claimed that some conditions added by the judge to his plea agreement were unfair because he didn’t agree to them. He thought this broke the rules about how judges and other branches of government should work separately. 2. He argued that the judge didn’t sentence him within the year required by law, making the sentence illegal. As the court reviewed these claims, they decided that the judge had done everything by the rules. First, they found that the judge's notes did not change the original agreement Markeese had made when he pleaded guilty, and he could have refused to accept the new conditions if he wanted. Therefore, his plea was still valid. For the second point, the court noted that even though Markeese thought the judge’s actions were a delay in sentencing, they were not. Instead, the judge was just giving him another chance to succeed in the program. The court pointed out that the judge was following the law properly by looking at Markeese's progress and determining if he deserved to have his sentence delayed further. Eventually, the court realized that the judge’s actions had led to a misunderstanding. To account for it properly, the court determined that Markeese had already been treated as if he had been given a part of his sentence when he was sanctioned to jail time and sent to the aftercare program. However, since Markeese had also been sentenced again later, it was like giving him two different sentences for the same crime, which is not allowed. In summary, the court decided to keep the original decision to deny Markeese's request to withdraw his plea but corrected what would happen next. They asked that his official record reflect that the sentence imposed during the sanction in December 2008 was what he needed to serve, and they mentioned that he should be released from custody. The result was that Markeese's case was somewhat settled, and his future would look different than it may have before, with the court noting a mistake that needed fixing without adding more time to his punishment.

Continue ReadingC-2010-77

F-2008-1041

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1041, David Roland Boschee appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one related to possession of a firearm after a felony. One judge dissented from the decision. Boschee was found guilty after a jury trial for several offenses, including robbery with a firearm. The court sentenced him to a total of 25 years in prison for his serious crimes. Boschee raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the fairness of his trial and the legitimacy of the multiple charges against him. Firstly, he argued that it was unfair to force him to defend against two robbery charges in one trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in joining these cases, meaning they decided it was reasonable to have them heard together. Secondly, Boschee contended that his convictions for both robbery and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number were against the law because they represented double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating these were separate offenses and did not violate any statutes. Thirdly, Boschee argued that he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of possessing a firearm after a felony. The court agreed that there was not enough evidence to support two convictions and decided to dismiss one of these counts. The court also found that his argument about receiving ineffective assistance from his lawyer was without merit, concluding that his rights were not violated in this regard. In summary, the court upheld most of Boschee's convictions but agreed that one count of possession should be dismissed. The judges had different opinions, with one judge dissenting, stating that the joining of the robbery charges may have harmed Boschee’s case.

Continue ReadingF-2008-1041

C-2009-410

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-410, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing regarding the petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. The case revolved around the petitioner who had pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine. He had a plea deal where he was supposed to receive a five-year sentence, but ultimately, he was given a ten-year sentence instead. After his sentencing, the petitioner believed that the judge did not follow the plea agreement correctly and moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court did not hold a hearing on his motion, which the petitioner argued was unfair. He raised several concerns, including that there was no clear reason for his guilty plea, that he might not have been competent to enter the plea, and that he didn’t receive proper help from his lawyer. He also claimed the sentence and other penalties were too harsh. After reviewing everything, the OCCA found that there should have been a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw his guilty plea. They ordered the trial court to have a hearing where the petitioner could present his case and have a lawyer help him. The hearing needed to happen within 45 days, and if the motion was denied, the court was to send the details to the OCCA, where the petitioner could appeal if he wished. In summary, the court decided that the petitioner deserved another chance to explain his reasons for wanting to withdraw his guilty plea, and a proper hearing should take place to address those issues.

Continue ReadingC-2009-410

F 2009-70

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2009-70, Phillip Ray Herndon appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and the sentence of twenty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Phillip Ray Herndon was found guilty in the Ottawa County District Court. The jury decided on a sentence of twenty years for his crime, which was based on his history of previous felonies. After his conviction, he claimed that the trial had some issues. Herndon pointed out a few problems he believed affected his trial. First, he argued that the judge should have allowed the jury to consider a lesser crime: simple Assault and Battery instead of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. He thought this was unfair and took away his rights to a fair trial. Second, he argued that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to prove he had used a dangerous weapon. He said there was no clear proof that the object he used was actually a dangerous weapon or that it could hurt someone badly. Lastly, he mentioned that the official court documents didn’t show an order that his new sentence would run at the same time as a sentence from another case. He wanted this to be fixed, calling for a correction to the official records. The court reviewed all the facts and evidence presented in the trial and decided that the judge did not make a mistake when refusing the request for the lesser offense. They agreed that there was enough evidence for the jury to convict Herndon of the more serious charge. They also acknowledged that the judge had ordered his sentence to run concurrently with another but agreed that the paperwork needed to be corrected. In the end, the court upheld the sentence of twenty years but sent the case back to fix the clerical error about the sentence running concurrently with Herndon’s other case.

Continue ReadingF 2009-70

F-2008-579

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-579, Thomas Clinton Ledgerwood appealed his conviction for Maiming, Domestic Abuse Involving Great Bodily Injury, and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Ledgerwood's conviction for Kidnapping and affirm the other convictions. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2008-579

F-2008-97

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-97, the appellant appealed her conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction. One judge dissented. The appellant, Kristie K. Thompson, was found guilty by a jury for not providing proper medical care for her child’s rash. The case was heard in the Stephens County District Court, where she was sentenced to six months in jail. She appealed the conviction for several reasons, including claims that the instructions given to the jury were incorrect and that she should have been given a chance for a lesser charge. After carefully reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the court found that there was not enough proof to show that she willfully neglected the medical needs of her child. They concluded that no reasonable person could have decided she was guilty based on the evidence. Therefore, they reversed her conviction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. Since they found a major error related to the evidence, the court decided not to address the other claims made by the appellant. The court issued their decision based on the principle that everyone deserves a fair trial and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Continue ReadingF-2008-97

F-2008-229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-229, an individual appealed his conviction for several counts of child sexual abuse and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one count. One judge dissented. The individual, Timothy Ray Belvin, faced multiple serious charges in a district court. The charges included child sexual abuse, procuring a child for pornography, and lewd acts with a child. During the trial, some charges were dropped, but he was found guilty on others. The judge sentenced him to life imprisonment on two counts and ten years on the rest, with the sentences being served at the same time. In his appeal, the individual raised several arguments. He claimed that some of his convictions should be overturned due to the statute of limitations, which limits the time for prosecuting a crime. He also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove certain charges and that he did not receive proper legal help during his trial. Furthermore, he believed the punishment was too severe. After reviewing everything, the court determined that the prosecution was allowed to pursue one of the charges because there was evidence that acts occurred within the time frame allowed by law. They also found enough evidence for the conviction on several counts. However, they agreed that one charge did not have enough proof, so they reversed that specific conviction. The court also concluded that the defense was effective and that the sentences were appropriate given the nature of the crimes and the circumstances. As a result, the court upheld most of the convictions and instructed the lower court to dismiss one charge.

Continue ReadingF-2008-229

C 2008-448

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2008-448, Franklin Savoy Combs appealed his conviction for grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow Combs to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Combs was charged with grand larceny after two checks were stolen while he was visiting someone's home. He entered an Alford plea, meaning he accepted a punishment without admitting guilt, thinking it would be in his best interest. Combs was sentenced to five years in prison, with four years of that time suspended. Later, Combs sent a letter to the court saying he wanted to change his plea because he believed he was not guilty since he did not actually steal anything. The court agreed to a hearing where Combs explained that he didn't commit the crime. However, the court decided not to let him withdraw his plea. Combs then appealed this decision and raised two main points: he didn't understand what he was doing when he entered his plea, and there wasn't enough evidence to support his plea. The appeals court reviewed the case and decided that the original court made mistakes. They noted that there was not enough factual basis for Combs to plead guilty. In fact, they found that he might actually be innocent of the charges based on the facts presented. The appeals court said that Combs should be allowed to take back his plea and sent the case back to the lower court for further actions based on their ruling. Overall, the court agreed that Combs did not enter his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and they concluded their findings by granting him the chance to withdraw his Alford plea.

Continue ReadingC 2008-448

S-2008-176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-176, the State of Oklahoma appealed its case against a person charged with multiple crimes, including trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The trial court had ruled that some evidence obtained from a locked safe in the motel room during the arrest should be suppressed, meaning it couldn't be used in court. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they believed the trial court made an error by not allowing a detective to share specific statements from a witness who gave permission to search the hotel room. Second, they thought the officers had the right to search the locked safe without needing a warrant. After looking closely at the case and the reasons for the trial court's decisions, the court concluded that the trial judge had done the right thing. It found that the trial court's rulings about hearsay, which refers to using second-hand information as evidence, were not wrong. The judges decided the officers should have obtained a warrant before searching that locked safe. The court affirmed, meaning they agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence from the safe. A judge dissented but the main ruling stood.

Continue ReadingS-2008-176

RE 2007-0517

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2007-0517, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. The court also decided that the order must be corrected to reflect that one of the sentences was for five years, not ten years. One judge dissented in part, agreeing with the overall decision but raised concerns about the details of the sentencing.

Continue ReadingRE 2007-0517

F-2006-854

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-854, Delbert L. Gibson appealed his conviction for two counts of lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Gibson was found guilty of sexually fondling two young girls, aged thirteen and eleven, in September 2002. During the incident, Gibson followed the older girl into a bedroom and began to fondle her. The younger girl was also fondled shortly after. The girls told their mother about the incident and reported it to the police. Gibson raised four main points of error during his appeal. The first claimed he did not receive a speedy trial. The court looked at how long he waited for the trial, why there was a delay, whether he asked for a quick trial, and if the delay harmed his case. Gibson was charged in November 2002 but was not arrested until March 2005, with the trial occurring in June 2006. The court found that even though the delay seemed long, Gibson did not complain about it before the trial, which hurt his argument. Therefore, the court believed he was not denied a speedy trial. Gibson's second point was about other-crimes evidence that was presented during his trial. The state brought up a past incident where Gibson had fondled a ten-year-old girl while working as a school photographer twenty years earlier. The court agreed that this evidence was probably not properly connected to the current case but felt it did not significantly impact the jury’s decision, especially since the two young girls provided strong testimonies. In his third point, Gibson argued the jury was incorrectly instructed on the penalties for his crimes. He believed that the law didn’t support a mandatory life sentence without parole based on the charges brought against him. The court analyzed the laws and determined that the proper penalties did not include mandatory life sentences, leading them to modify his sentence instead. Finally, Gibson claimed that all these problems together denied him a fair trial. Since the court found no major errors, the cumulative effect claim was also denied. Overall, the court upheld Gibson's conviction for molestation, but changed his sentence to a total of twenty-five years in prison instead of life without parole.

Continue ReadingF-2006-854

F-2006-1095

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1095, Terry Dewayne Wakefield appealed his conviction for kidnapping, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and assault and battery - domestic abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Wakefield's convictions for kidnapping and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. However, the sentence for assault and battery - domestic abuse was modified from ten years to one year in the county jail. One dissenting opinion was noted.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1095

F-2006-780

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-780, Roy Carl Bales, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bales's conviction for robbery but modified his sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle to three years in prison. One judge dissented. Bales was found guilty by a jury of committing robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The jury decided that he should serve twenty years for robbery and six years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running one after the other. Bales raised two main points in his appeal. The first point was about how the trial court instructed the jury on the minimum sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Bales argued that the court made a mistake by not giving the jury the correct information on the punishment range. The second point was that the trial court should have made Bales's sentences run at the same time instead of back-to-back, which he thought was too harsh. After looking carefully at the details of the case, the court found a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the sentence. They decided that the minimum sentence for unauthorized use should be three years instead of six years. However, the court thought that the long sentence for robbery was appropriate given Bales's past criminal record, so they kept that sentence as it was. Ultimately, the court affirmed the robbery conviction and changed the unauthorized vehicle use sentence to three years in prison, making one judge disagree with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2006-780

C-2006-863

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-863, the petitioner appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the petitioner's request for further review. One member of the court dissented. To explain further, the case began when the petitioner, Wilkerson, entered a blind plea, meaning he agreed to plead guilty without any deal from the prosecutor, to a serious charge of First Degree Manslaughter. This happened in the Tulsa County District Court. In June 2006, the court accepted his plea and decided that he would spend life in prison, but he would only have to serve 20 years of that sentence right away. The court also ordered him to pay $10,000 as restitution. A little later, in July 2006, Wilkerson wanted to take back his plea and filed a motion to withdraw it, but the court said no after a hearing in August. Following this, Wilkerson decided to appeal and asked for a special review from the OCCA. During the appeal, Wilkerson pointed out three main areas he felt were wrong: 1. He believed his sentence was affected by bias and improper evidence presented in court, leading to a sentence that was too harsh. 2. He argued that he should not have to pay the $10,000 fine since it was not mentioned correctly in the sentence. 3. He wanted the official records to show the date his sentence was first pronounced, which was June 23, 2006. After looking at all the records, it was determined that Wilkerson's plea was made willingly and his sentence was not excessive. The court agreed that the $10,000 fine was wrongly imposed and should be removed, but they also acknowledged that the trial court had done the right thing by dismissing the restitution order since no evidence supported it. The decision concluded with the court denying Wilkerson’s request for a special review but correcting the record to eliminate the fine and officially reflecting the correct date of sentencing.

Continue ReadingC-2006-863

RE-2006-180

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-180, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided in part to grant the appeal, allowing credit for thirty days previously served, but denied the rest of the appeal concerning time served in county jail during the revocation proceedings. One judge dissented. The case involved Raynard Emory Dinkins, who had received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. Over time, Dinkins faced various legal issues, including an application to revoke his suspended sentence due to numerous probation violations. A judge found that he had violated several rules during his probation, leading to a revocation of his suspended sentence. The court noted that Dinkins had been in jail before his revocation hearing but did not grant him credit for that time, arguing that it was because he had trouble working with his attorneys. Dinkins contested this, claiming he should receive credit for the time he served while awaiting the hearing. The court agreed that he should receive credit for an earlier thirty-day jail term related to his probation. In the end, the court found that while Dinkins was entitled to some credit for time served, it was within the judge's discretion not to grant him credit for the later time spent in jail. Therefore, the appeal was partially granted to correct the credit issue, while other claims were denied.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-180

F-2005-1193

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1193, Tamara Marine Davis appealed her conviction for Accessory to Felony Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to twenty-five years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Davis was found guilty of helping her husband after a murder had occurred. She assisted him in hiding evidence and lying to the police. At her trial, Davis presented several arguments for why her conviction and sentence should be overturned. First, she claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. The court disagreed, ruling that her actions showed she knew the victim was dead when she assisted her husband in getting rid of the victim's belongings and fleeing the state. Second, she argued that the jury heard improper information concerning her probation and parole history, which made them biased against her. However, the court noted that this information was raised by Davis herself to show the witness's bias, so it did not warrant reversal of the conviction. Third, she contended that misconduct by the prosecutor deprived her of a fair trial. The court found that while there were some issues with the prosecutor's questions, they did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Davis also claimed she received ineffective assistance from her attorney. The court found that the lawyer's performance was acceptable and that Davis could not show any harm resulting from their actions. Furthermore, she believed the introduction of some irrelevant evidence was unfair. However, the court determined that the evidence did not unduly sway the jury's decision. Davis argued the length of her sentence was too harsh compared to her involvement in the crime, and the court agreed, reducing her sentence from forty years to twenty-five. Lastly, the court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a different result in the trial. Thus, while the court affirmed the conviction, it took action to lessen the punishment given to Davis.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1193

PC 2006-0638

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC 2006-0638, the petitioner appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of counterfeit bills, and larceny by fraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. One judge dissented. The petitioner had previously been convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison along with fines. After the conviction, the petitioner argued that his trial and appellate lawyers did not perform effectively. He contended that many mistakes were made during his trial, impacting the fairness of his case. The trial court found that the petitioner's attorney did not challenge the way his statement to the police was obtained, which was a significant part of the evidence used against him. The lawyer also failed to ask for important jury instructions and did not properly raise issues on appeal. The trial court agreed that the lawyer made many mistakes, but initially decided that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case. However, upon review, the appellate court determined that the mistakes made by the lawyer were so serious that they undermined confidence in the trial's outcome. This meant that the petitioner did not get a fair trial, violating his rights. The decision was reversed, and the case was sent back to the lower court for a new trial. This case highlights the importance of having effective legal representation, as mistakes made by lawyers can lead to wrongful convictions or unfair trials.

Continue ReadingPC 2006-0638

RE-2006-1308

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1308, an individual appealed their conviction for obtaining merchandise by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the order revoking the suspended sentence for one case was reversed because the court did not have the right to revoke it after it expired, but the revocation for the other case was affirmed. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of the case: The person involved, let's call her Appellant, got in trouble for pretending to be someone else and committing fraud. In 2001, she was given a three-year punishment, but it was suspended, meaning she didn't have to go to jail right away if she followed certain rules. In 2002, she got into more trouble with three more crimes of taking things without paying. Again, her punishment was suspended, allowing her some time to pay back the money she owed. However, by 2003, the Appellant wasn't paying back the money as she was supposed to, so the authorities filed to take away her suspended sentences. Over several years, Appellant was given multiple chances to fix her mistakes and to pay what she owed, but she continued to have problems and missed important hearings. In December 2006, the decision to take away her suspended sentences was finalized. The Appellant argued that the court should not have the power to do that because the time to punish her had already passed. The court agreed on one point: they couldn't revoke one of her sentences because it had expired. But the other case was still valid because some papers had been filed before that expiration. After going through everything, the court reversed the decision about one of the suspended sentences but agreed that the other sentence could still be revoked since she had not followed the rules. This means she would still face consequences for her actions there. In the end, it showed that if you don’t follow the rules when given a second chance, there can be serious consequences, and sometimes time limits can change what can happen in court.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-1308

F-2005-874

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-874, Leroy Mitchell, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Leroy Mitchell, Jr. was found guilty of a serious crime after a trial without a jury. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but five of those years were suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that time unless he got into trouble again. Mitchell believed there were problems during his trial and decided to appeal. He had several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that some statements made during the trial were unfair because they were hearsay. Hearsay is when someone repeats what another person said rather than saying what they directly experienced. In Mitchell's case, he felt that the way the hearsay was used violated his rights, particularly his right to confront witnesses against him. Also, he claimed that some of the evidence presented in court was unreliable and that he did not have a fair chance to defend himself. He worried that the evidence related to other crimes might have influenced the judge unfairly. Mitchell also said that his lawyer did not perform well during the trial, which led to more problems. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Mitchell's rights were not properly protected during the trial. Specifically, they found that the court allowed too much hearsay without the necessary checks to ensure it was reliable. This made it hard to believe the outcome of the trial was fair. As a result, the court decided to reverse the original judgment and said that Mitchell deserves another trial where these issues can be addressed properly.

Continue ReadingF-2005-874

F-2005-468

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-468, Rebecca R. Pettit appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the tragic death of Pettit's six-year-old son, Adam. The state accused Pettit of murdering her son by asphyxiation and attempting to take her life afterwards by cutting her wrists. When the trial began, Pettit had been appointed a lawyer to help her, but later the court decided that she was not poor enough to need a public defender and made her represent herself. During her appeal, Pettit argued two main points. First, she said the trial court wrongly decided that she did not need a lawyer. Second, she claimed there was no proof that she chose to represent herself willingly. It is important for accused people to have the option to either have a lawyer or represent themselves, but if they choose to go without a lawyer, the court must make sure they understand what that means. The appellate court noted that there was no record showing Pettit was aware of the risks of representing herself. With no evidence she truly wanted to do this, the court ruled that she should not have had to stand trial alone. So, the court reversed her conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. The appellate court did not look at other issues raised by Pettit because of this main point regarding her representation. Ultimately, the court ordered that Pettit's case be retried, ensuring she has the chance to have a lawyer represent her this time.

Continue ReadingF-2005-468

F-2005-700

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-700, Harry Oliver West appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While License is Canceled/Suspended/Revoked. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. West was found guilty by a jury, which decided that he should serve a total of 45 years in prison for the first offense and 1 year for the second offense, with some fines included as well. However, during the trial, the jury was not given proper instructions about what driving under the influence and driving while impaired mean. Even though West did not ask for these instructions, the court agreed that this was a significant mistake that affected the case. Due to this error, the court found that West deserved another chance to have his case heard, which means a new trial will take place. As a result, the decisions made in the trial are reversed, and the case gets remanded, which means it goes back to the lower court for a fresh start.

Continue ReadingF-2005-700

F-2005-363

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-363, Adan Ramos, Jr. appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force or Fear. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. The court found that there was no valid waiver of Ramos's right to a jury trial, which is a fundamental right. Ramos's other claims about ineffective assistance of counsel, exclusion of evidence, and interpreter issues became moot since the court ordered a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-363

F-2004-146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-146