Propositions of Error Archives - Page 7 of 8

F-2001-1048

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 23, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1048, Wendy Leann Underwood appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of the case: Wendy Leann Underwood was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine after she had committed other crimes before. The jury decided she should go to prison for 40 years. However, Wendy thought there were problems with how her case was handled, so she asked a higher court to review it. Wendy raised several points for why she believed her conviction and sentence should be changed: 1. She argued that the police search which found the drugs was not done properly, so the drugs should not have been used against her in court. She also said her lawyer did not fight this issue well enough. 2. She thought the trial did not properly explain to the jury that a person who testified against her was an accomplice and that there should have been supporting evidence for what that person said. 3. Wendy pointed out that many of her past criminal cases were actually part of the same situation, so they should not count as multiple offenses. 4. She believed her punishment should have been based on specific drug laws instead of general laws for repeat offenders. 5. Wendy thought she should get a lighter sentence because of new laws that help non-violent offenders. After looking carefully at everything, the court found that the police search was legal and that Wendy's lawyer did not make a mistake by not challenging it. They also decided that the person who testified against Wendy was not someone who required additional proof, so that was fine too. However, the court agreed that too many of Wendy's past convictions were counted, since many of them happened during the same event. Therefore, they decided to change her sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They felt that was fair based on the laws. Regarding the other issues raised by Wendy, the court determined that the punishment was appropriately based on the laws and that the new laws did not apply to her case. Thus, they kept her conviction but made her time in prison shorter. In conclusion, her conviction stood, but her time in prison was reduced to 30 years, with one judge thinking it should be even less.

F 2001-1348

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1348, Holly Ann Glasgow appealed her conviction for two counts of Robbery by Force and Fear. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on Count One and remand it to the district court to change the charge to Receiving Stolen Property with a reduced sentence. The conviction on Count Two was affirmed. One judge dissented.

C-2001-514

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 4, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-514, the petitioner appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder (by permitting child abuse). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to a life sentence with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented.

F-2001-1517

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 24, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1517, Paul Nathan Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug offenses, including Attempt to Manufacture Methamphetamine and Possession of Methamphetamine Within 1000 Feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's convictions and sentences but vacated the fine imposed for one of the charges. One judge dissented. The case involved Johnson being found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine and having it near a school. He was also charged with having a gun while committing these crimes and having tools used for drug-making. The trial judge gave Johnson a long sentence and hefty fines based on the jury's recommendations. Johnson raised several complaints in his appeal. First, he argued that being convicted for both trying to make meth and having it near a school was unfair. The court decided that both charges were different enough that he could be found guilty of both without it being double punishment. Next, Johnson claimed there wasn't enough proof that he had a gun ready to use while making drugs. However, the court found that there was enough evidence showing he had the gun where he could easily get to it. Johnson also argued that he didn't really start making meth yet. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence showed he was past just planning and was actively attempting to make the drug. Finally, Johnson felt that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the judge acted within their rights in giving Johnson the sentences and fines, except for one fine, which they deemed not allowed by the law. In the end, the court confirmed most of Johnson's convictions and sentences but removed the extra fine related to one of the charges.

F 2001-999

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 18, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-999, Eric Jackson Davis appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions but reversed one of them due to lack of sufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented regarding the decision on sentencing. Davis was found guilty by a jury of five counts of First Degree Rape, two counts of Lewd Molestation, and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. The trial took place over three days, and the jury decided on punishments ranging from ten to fifty years for the various counts. The judge announced that Davis's sentences would be served one after the other, known as consecutive sentences. Davis raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that there was no evidence proving that a sexual act occurred in the case of the Forcible Oral Sodomy charge, and therefore he asked for that conviction to be overturned. Second, he claimed that there was insufficient evidence for one of the rape counts and wanted it dismissed as well. Lastly, he argued that receiving a total of two hundred forty years in prison was too severe. After looking at the facts and evidence from the trial, the court found that most of the convictions were supported by enough evidence. However, they agreed that one rape conviction should be reversed because the prosecution did not present enough proof to support that specific charge. The court did not find merit in the argument about the Forcible Oral Sodomy conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged that different factors should be considered when deciding if a sentence is too harsh. While they found the trial judge's refusal to consider running the sentences at the same time was wrong, they stated that the judge's personal views about sex crimes against children influenced that decision. Therefore, the case was sent back to the lower court for resentencing, but the main convictions were upheld. In summary, the court upheld the majority of Davis's convictions and ordered the court below to reconsider how the sentences were issued, while they reversed one specific conviction due to a lack of evidence. One judge disagreed with the need for a new sentencing hearing, believing that the consequences should remain as they are given the serious nature of the crimes.

F 2001-962

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 20, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-962, Chester Creller, Sr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Incest. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy but reversed the conviction for Incest. One judge dissented. Creller was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses in a trial in Muskogee County. The jury decided on heavy punishments for the crimes: 100 years for Rape, 20 years for Oral Sodomy, and 10 years for Incest. The judge planned for the sentences for Rape and Oral Sodomy to be served one after the other, while the Incest sentence would happen at the same time as the Rape sentence. Creller took his case to a higher court, arguing several points. He claimed that the court should not have tried his case, that changes made to the case were unfair, that there were problems with how the victim's testimony was used, that he should not have been convicted of both Rape and Incest for the same act, and that the way evidence was handled did not guarantee him a fair trial. The higher court carefully looked over all the arguments and decided that Creller's claim about his convictions for Rape and Incest being based on the same action was valid. Therefore, they overturned the Incest conviction but found that the other points he raised did not change the overall outcome. The court confirmed that the trial was handled correctly in most ways and said that even though there were some mistakes, they did not affect the right decision because there was strong evidence against Creller. The decision also stated that the prosecution's closing arguments did not unfairly influence the jury because the defense did not object during the trial. In summary, Creller's sentence for Incest was dismissed, but he still faced very long sentences for the other charges.

F-2001-122

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 11, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-122, Joseph Edward Peyton appealed his conviction for five counts of Robbery With Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for Counts I and III, but reverse and dismiss Counts II, IV, and V. One member of the court dissented. Peyton was tried and found guilty of the robbery charges in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to ten years for Counts I and III, and five years for Counts II, IV, and V, with the sentences running consecutively. Peyton argued three main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that his statements to the police should not have been used against him because he was not in custody when he made them. The court found that the situation did not need Miranda warnings, so his statements were allowed as evidence. Second, Peyton argued that there wasn't enough evidence for his convictions on Counts II, IV, and V. The court agreed, stating that just being at the crime scene does not automatically make someone guilty. They found that the evidence against Peyton for those specific counts was not solid enough, and they reversed those convictions. Lastly, Peyton argued that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court disagreed, saying the sentence was appropriate and did not shock their conscience. In summary, the court upheld part of the conviction, but also recognized that not all the evidence supported Peyton's guilt on every count. The decisions made reflected careful consideration of what the law required in these types of cases.

F 2001-873

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

In OCCA case No. F 2001-873, Jerome Wade Hennesy appealed his conviction for Trafficking in a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine Base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. In this case, Jerome Wade Hennesy was found guilty of trafficking cocaine by a jury. The jury decided he should serve ten years in prison and pay a fine of $25,000. Hennesy appealed, arguing that the evidence used against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt and that there was unfair evidence related to other crimes. The court agreed with Hennesy on the second point about the unfair evidence, saying it was a serious mistake that affected the trial. The judges mentioned that since the evidence against him was mostly based on circumstances and not very strong, the mistake couldn't be ignored. They decided that Hennesy needed a new trial, so he could have a fair chance to defend himself. The judges noted that the first point about whether the evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt was no longer important because they were giving him a new trial based on the unfair evidence. They expected the state to have stronger evidence if Hennesy was tried again. So, they made the decision to reverse the previous judgment and order a new trial.

F-2001-637

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 13, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-637, James Ricky Ezell, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery, False Impersonation, and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ezell's judgment but ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Ezell was found guilty by a jury of robbing a convenience store and other crimes. The jury gave him long sentences for each crime, which the trial court ordered to be served one after the other. Ezell argued that his right to a fair trial was hurt because an African-American was removed from the jury, that the judge’s policy of always giving consecutive sentences was wrong, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the prosecutor had a good reason for removing the juror, so there was no unfair trial. However, it agreed that the judge's strict policy against considering running sentences together was a mistake. The court found that while sentences usually should run consecutively, judges must look at all options, including the chance to run sentences together, especially if a defendant has prior convictions. In conclusion, while Ezell's conviction was upheld, the court said the sentencing decision was not fully considered and sent the case back for the judge to look at this again. One judge disagreed with the decision to send the case back for resentencing, believing that the original sentences were justified given the nature of Ezell's crimes.

F-2001-655

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-655, Robert Leroy Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Leroy Martin was found guilty of serious crimes by a jury. The judge gave him life imprisonment for rape, fifty years for robbery, and twenty years for burglary, and said he had to serve these sentences one after the other. Martin then appealed this decision. During the appeal, the court looked closely at the case and the arguments made. They considered several points raised by Martin. The first point was about the instructions the jury received during the trial about burglary. The court found this was not a mistake that affected the trial unfairly because Martin’s explanation was different from that of another case. The second point Martin made was about the jurors not getting complete information on the punishments they could choose for each crime. However, the court said Martin did not object during the trial, so he couldn’t claim this as an error now. The third and final point discussed was whether the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that the long sentences felt excessive for the circumstances of the case. In the end, the court said Martin would still be found guilty but changed the way the sentences would be served from one after the other to at the same time. One judge disagreed with changing the sentences, believing the original decision by the trial judge should stand.

F 2001-465

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 4, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-465, Tashiro Rudy Tillman appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction on the drug charge but vacated the sentence for that charge, requiring resentencing. The conviction for obstructing an officer was upheld. One judge dissented.

F-2001-336

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

In OCCA case No. F-2001-336, Roger Allen Eddy, Jr. appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, reverse his convictions for possession of a precursor substance and possession of methamphetamine, and modify his sentence for possession of a firearm to five years. One member of the court dissented.

C-2001-665

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-665, the petitioner appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner the ability to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who had been originally charged with three counts of sexual abuse of a minor child, reached a plea agreement where the charges were reduced. He pled guilty to the lesser offense of indecent exposure and received a 20-year prison sentence, which was the minimum possible. Later, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he had been misled about the prison time he would actually serve. He argued that he was incorrectly informed he would have to serve 85% of his sentence if he went to trial, which was not true for his case. The court found that the misinformation affected his decision to plead guilty even though he had also given contradictory statements during the hearings. The court ultimately ruled that because he was misinformed, his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. As a result, his conviction was vacated, and he was allowed to withdraw his plea.

J 2001-878

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2002
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2001-878, G.S. appealed his conviction for petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's decision and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. G.S. was found to be a delinquent child for committing a crime that would be a crime for an adult, called petit larceny. This meant that he was taken to court to see if he really did what he was accused of. After the trial, a judge decided that G.S. should be placed in a special care program for children and that he should pay for court costs and fees for his lawyer. G.S. was unhappy with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at his case again. He brought up three main problems with his case: 1. He argued that there wasn’t enough of a record for the higher court to review, so his conviction should be changed. 2. He thought that his lawyer didn’t give enough information to the higher court, which meant he didn’t get the help he needed. 3. He also said that there was no evidence showing he agreed to give up his right to a jury trial, which he thought was wrong. The court looked closely at everything, including the records and the written arguments from both sides. They decided that G.S. was right about not having proof he gave up his right to a jury trial. Because of this, they thought the trial court's decision should be reversed, meaning G.S. would get another chance to have his case heard. The judges agreed that the original trial didn’t follow the right rules. A big part of this situation was that when a child is accused of something serious, like stealing, they have rights, including having a jury to listen to their case. In G.S.’s case, there was no paperwork or proof showing he understood and agreed to give up that right. So, the court decided that G.S. should have a new trial to give him a fair chance to defend himself. The decision made by the original trial court was erased, and the case was sent back so it could be done again properly.

F-2001-46

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

In OCCA case No. F-2001-46, Harold Edward McHam appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Kidnapping and affirm the conviction for Indecent Proposal. One judge dissented regarding the Kidnapping conviction. Harold McHam was found guilty in a trial that took place from October 10 to October 12, 2000, in Choctaw County District Court. He was convicted of two charges: Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. The jury sentenced him to one year in prison for each count, and the sentences were set to be served one after the other. The judge also ordered McHam to pay $1,000 in incarceration fees for his time spent in jail. McHam raised several concerns during his appeal. First, he argued that the incarceration fees imposed on him violated his rights because they were not calculated according to the law. The court found that the trial judge did not show how the $1,000 fee was determined, and whether it would create hardship for McHam and his family. Thus, the fees were removed and the case was sent back to the district court to handle the fees properly. Second, McHam claimed there was not enough evidence to prove he kidnapped anyone. The court agreed, stating that a key part of the kidnapping charge was not supported by enough proof. The court saw that the evidence didn’t clearly show that McHam meant to secretly keep anyone confined against their will. Therefore, his Kidnapping conviction was overturned. Finally, McHam also argued that the punishment he received was too harsh. However, this point did not need to be discussed because the Kidnapping conviction was already reversed. On the other hand, the court upheld the conviction for Indecent Proposal, stating that there was enough evidence for that charge. In summary, the court decided to dismiss the Kidnapping charge, keep the Indecent Proposal charge, and take another look at the fees McHam was ordered to pay.

F-2000-1339

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 18, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1339, Harold Lee Cooper, Jr. appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court affirmed his conviction for possession of cocaine but reversed and dismissed the conviction for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented.

C-2001-341

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 16, 2002
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-341, Terrell Dwayne Gurley appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, burglary, larceny of an automobile, possession of a firearm after felony conviction, forcible entry, and attempting to intimidate a witness. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Gurley's conviction for one of the charges, burglary in the first degree, and ordered that this count be dismissed. The court upheld the remaining convictions and found Gurley's sentences were not excessive. One judge dissented, arguing that the laws applied in the case should be reconsidered regarding the relationship between the crimes committed.

RE-2000-1209

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

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1209, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including kidnapping and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to several serious charges in 1992, including kidnapping and rape, and received suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't serve time in prison as long as he followed certain rules. Later, a protective order was issued against him due to concerns from another person. Over the years, he faced more legal issues, including a new conviction in 1997. In 2000, the state asked the court to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he violated the protective order. After a hearing, the court revoked all his suspended sentences. The appellant disagreed with this decision and pointed out four main problems with how his case was handled. He argued that his new sentence was too long, that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he broke the protective order, that the revocation was unfair, and that he didn’t properly receive notice about the charges. The court reviewed his claims and found that there was enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentences and that the trial court made a reasonable decision. However, the court also agreed with the appellant that his sentence for one charge was incorrectly stated as nine years when it should have been seven years. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of his suspended sentences but changed his sentence for the kidnapping charge to the correct length.

F 2000-862

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-862, Taress Lamont Owens appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the $11,000 fine. One judge dissented. Taress Lamont Owens was found guilty by a jury in a case related to illegal drug possession. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a fine of $11,000. Taress believed there were several reasons why his conviction should be overturned or the fine changed, so he appealed the decision. First, he argued that the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court because it was obtained in violation of his rights. However, the judges felt that the search was legal because it was done with consent. They confirmed that the evidence was strong enough to convict him based on the facts of the case. Taress also thought that the evidence presented against him was not enough for a conviction. But the judges disagreed, saying there was sufficient proof that he intended to sell the drugs. He mentioned that some evidence was not relevant to the case, but the judges found the officer’s testimony useful to show the intention behind his actions. Taress raised issues about his rights being violated and that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. The judges looked at these claims and stated that there was no proof that he had been poorly represented in court. Finally, while the judges agreed on most points, they all felt that the fine imposed by the jury was too high according to the law. They decided to cancel the fine because the jury's instructions were incorrect regarding whether the fine should be mandatory. In conclusion, the court upheld Taress Lamont Owens' conviction but nullified the excessive fine, allowing him some relief from the financial penalty imposed during the trial.

M-2000-1482

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 21, 2001
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2000-1482, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful transportation of an opened container of alcoholic beverage. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty by a jury in Beckham County, where he was sentenced to six months in the county jail and had to pay more than $1,000 in court costs and fees. The case went through an accelerated process because of its nature. The main issue in the appeal was whether there was enough evidence to support the conviction. The appellant argued that the evidence did not show he had transported an opened alcoholic beverage on a public roadway, street, or alley as required by law. After reviewing the evidence and the details of the case, the court agreed with the appellant and found that there was indeed insufficient evidence to prove he had broken the law in this way. Thus, the higher court decided to reverse the original judgment and told the lower court to dismiss the case. The decision did not go without a disagreement; one judge believed that the conviction should stand.

RE 2000-1512

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 30, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1512, the appellant appealed her conviction for Omission to Provide for a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, in 1998, pled guilty to not providing for a minor. Instead of going to jail, she was given a chance to prove herself with what is called a deferred sentence. This means that if she followed the rules for a certain period, she wouldn’t have to serve time. However, in July 1999, the state decided to put her on a faster track to face her punishment due to some issues that had come up. In February 2000, the court decided to give her a suspended sentence of four years. This meant she wouldn’t go to jail but would have to follow certain rules. In September 2000, the state complained that she wasn’t following those rules, so they filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentence. The court held a hearing about this in November 2000 and decided to take away her suspended sentence entirely. The appellant then appealed this decision, meaning she wanted a higher court to look at whether the lower court made mistakes. She argued three main points in her appeal: 1. She claimed that the court made a big mistake by revoking her sentence with a lawyer who had conflicts of interest. This was important because having a lawyer who could represent her well was her right. 2. She said that the evidence used to take away her sentence was not good enough. In her view, the state did not prove that she had truly broken the rules. 3. She also believed that the revocation of her sentence was too harsh, especially because of the lack of strong evidence against her. During the hearing, it became clear that the lawyer who represented her in both her first plea and during the revocation hearing had ties to the state. This was considered a conflict of interest, which the court emphasized is not acceptable. In the end, the court found that the appellant was right about the conflict of interest and that this issue was serious enough to reverse the decision made by the lower court. The case was sent back for further proceedings where these problems with her representation could be addressed.

F-2000-1308

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 26, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1308, Recil Gravitt appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Maintaining a Dwelling for Drugs, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the fine on Count I to $10,000. One judge dissented.

RE 2000-1257

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 16, 2001
Post category:RE

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.

F-2000-1156

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 28, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1156, Randy Scott Bucsok appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by instrumentation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Bucsok was found guilty of multiple charges, including lewd molestation and rape by instrumentation. The jury sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison, with some sentences running consecutively while others were partially suspended. Following his conviction, Bucsok raised several arguments in his appeal regarding mistakes made during the trial. First, he argued that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing two witnesses, Shell and Kemble, to testify. The court found this was a serious error because their testimony could have been important to Bucsok's defense. The judges believed that excluding this evidence hurt Bucsok's chance for a fair trial. Bucsok also claimed that the trial court wrongly allowed hearsay testimony from other witnesses. However, the court decided that this part of the trial was handled correctly and that the testimony was admissible. Additionally, Bucsok expressed concern about unfair evidence being presented to the jury regarding uncharged crimes, but the court determined that there was no plain error in how this evidence was managed. Finally, he disagreed with the trial court’s decision to bar testimony about the victim's behavior that could explain injuries. In conclusion, the court found that the trial court had made critical mistakes, particularly in not allowing key witnesses to testify, which warranted a new trial for Bucsok.

F 2000-152

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

In OCCA case No. F 2000-152, the appellant, Sidney Leon Crittenden, appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count but reversed and remanded the second count with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Crittenden was charged with serious offenses, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. He was found guilty on two counts of Lewd Molestation and sentenced to 45 years in prison for each count, along with a fine. On appeal, Crittenden raised several arguments. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as changing the charges and allowing evidence of other crimes, which he felt unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that being convicted of two offenses from the same incident was against the rules, and he felt the sentences he received were too harsh. After looking carefully at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Crittenden on one issue—being charged for two separate offenses from one event was not acceptable. They affirmed the first conviction but ordered that the second one be dismissed as there was not enough evidence to support it as a separate act. The court noted that while some evidence suggested there might have been different incidents, it was not strong enough to meet the required level of proof. They concluded that the trial was mostly fair, and the sentences for the first count seemed appropriate. Overall, the decision respected that some of the rules regarding the number of convictions related to a single act were not followed and adjusted the outcome accordingly.