Prosecutor

F-2019-68

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-68, Johnny Edward Mize, II appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter (Heat of Passion). In a published decision, the court decided that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Mize. Mize had claimed that the State of Oklahoma did not have the authority to prosecute him because the victim was part of a federally recognized tribe and the crime occurred within a reservation. The court supported this claim after an evidentiary hearing, confirming that the victim had Indian status and that the crime happened in the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. As a result, the original judgment and sentence were vacated, and the matter was sent back to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. The decision relied on previous case law stating that Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes involving Indian victims that take place on tribal land.

Continue ReadingF-2019-68

F-2018-964

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the case of Robert Paul Lockner, Sr. v. The State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed Lockner's conviction for assault and battery against police officers. Lockner was sentenced to four years in prison for each of the two counts, to be served consecutively. He raised several arguments on appeal, which the court addressed. 1. **Self-Defense Instruction**: Lockner contended that the trial court erred by not providing a jury instruction on self-defense. However, the court upheld that the trial court acted within its discretion, asserting that Lockner did not demonstrate entitlement to such an instruction as per the law governing use of force by police officers in effecting an arrest. 2. **Other Crimes Evidence**: Lockner argued that the introduction of evidence showing methamphetamine in his system at the time of arrest was improper because the state failed to notify him beforehand. The court found that this evidence was part of the res gestae of the charged offense, meaning it was closely connected to the events of the crime. Therefore, it was not subject to the notice requirement. They ruled that the evidence’s probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. 3. **Cumulative Error Doctrine**: Lockner claimed that the combined effect of multiple alleged errors warranted a new trial. The court determined that since no individual error was sustained, there was no basis for a cumulative error claim. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, concluding that Lockner's rights had not been violated and he had not demonstrated any errors that would warrant reversal of his conviction. In a special concurrence, Judge Kuehn elaborated on the inadmissibility of the drug test results in the state’s case-in-chief, but agreed that their eventual admission did not affect Lockner’s substantial rights due to the potential for impeachment in his own testimony. The decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ensures that Lockner's conviction stands, as all claims for relief were denied.

Continue ReadingF-2018-964

J-2018-1066

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. J-2018-1066** **Decided on: August 8, 2019** **A.O. (Appellant)** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma (Appellee)** **Opinion of the Court by Presiding Judge Lewis:** **Background:** The appellant, A.O., a minor, was charged as a juvenile with Sexual Battery per 21 O.S. Supp. 2017, § 1123(B) in McIntosh County District Court (Case No. JDL-2017-29). Subsequently, on February 26, 2018, an Amended Delinquent Petition was filed, charging him with Child Sexual Abuse under 21 O.S. Supp. 2014, § 843.5(E). Following a non-jury trial held on September 25, 2018, the court adjudicated A.O. as delinquent. **Issues on Appeal:** 1. A.O. contends he was never informed of his right to a jury trial, claiming a violation of due process. 2. He argues that the conduct in question—touching the victim's buttocks over clothing—does not constitute Child Sexual Abuse as intended by the legislature. 3. A.O. claims the prosecutor expressed an opinion on his guilt, violating his due process rights. **Rulings:** 1. **Proposition I**: The court found no merit in A.O.'s claim regarding his jury trial rights. The record demonstrated that both A.O. and his guardian were informed of the right to a jury trial and that they consciously waived this right. 2. **Proposition II**: On this issue, the court ruled in favor of A.O. The court determined that the state failed to prove each element of the underlying crime of Child Sexual Abuse. Specifically, the court stated that to convict under § 843.5(E), the state bears the burden of proving the elements of lewd acts, which were not sufficiently demonstrated in court. 3. **Proposition III**: The court found the prosecution's remarks during the trial did not constitute plain error, as the comments related to the evidence presented and did not deprive A.O. of a fair trial. **Final Decision:** The adjudicating order of Child Sexual Abuse was **REVERSED**. The matter is **REMANDED** to the district court to amend the adjudication to Assault and Battery under 21 O.S. 2011, § 644. The court affirmed the adjudication as modified. **Dissenting Opinion by Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn:** Judge Kuehn expressed concerns about the implications of the majority ruling, arguing that it effectively renders § 843.5(E) unconstitutional due to its vagueness and conflict with age-based elements in other statutes, which could lead to arbitrary enforcement. The dissent maintains that the elements of § 843.5(E) should not require additional instructions unless those elements are included in the Information—and calls for the conviction to be reversed entirely based on the statute's broad language, which might punish conduct that is arguably not criminal. In conclusion, the court's ruling finds resonance in the legislative intention behind the statutes governing Child Sexual Abuse and the need for clarity in legal definitions, especially concerning age restrictions in sexual offenses. **Links:** [Download PDF of the Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2018-1066_1734449875.pdf)

Continue ReadingJ-2018-1066

F-2015-531

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-53, Dennis Ray Runnels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Runnels was convicted after a jury trial, where he was found guilty of distributing meth. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years imprisonment, with one year of post-imprisonment supervision, and ordered him to pay a fee for a court-appointed attorney and other costs. Runnels raised several issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the state did not show a complete chain of custody for the meth. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Runnels was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that Runnels had not shown any plain error regarding this issue. Second, Runnels argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his conviction. However, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence, including testimony and recordings from a controlled buy, for the jury to reach their conclusion. Third, he claimed the state failed to provide evidence that could have helped his case. He said the prosecutor did not correct a witness’s false testimony about prior convictions. The court found no wrongdoing by the state and ruled that Runnels had not shown how this affected the trial's outcome. In his fourth claim, Runnels argued that the jury was incorrectly instructed on punishment. The court agreed and found it was a plain error, which required modification of his sentence. Runnels also claimed the jury was led to think about probation and parole during the trial, but since the punishment was modified based on the previous claim, this point became moot. Regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court agreed that it should be modified due to the instructional error and reduced it to 10 years with the same supervision and fees. Runnels also said his attorney was ineffective in several ways. However, the court found that these claims were moot because of the prior decision to modify his sentence. Lastly, Runnels asked the court to look at the overall errors during his trial to see if they denied him a fair outcome. The court determined that since they did not find any sustained errors, this request was denied. In conclusion, Runnels's conviction was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to 10 years in prison with supervision, and he will still pay the attorney fees and costs.

Continue ReadingF-2015-531

F-2014-870

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-870, Ricco Dante Walters appealed his conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for possession of a sawed-off shotgun and possession of drug paraphernalia but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2014-870

F-2014-279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-279, Cruz-Brizuela appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for new trials with conflict-free counsel. Guevara also appealed his conviction for the same charge, and the court made a similar decision for him. A dissenting opinion was filed. Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were both found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for having a large amount of cocaine hidden in a truck they were driving. The police had stopped them for a minor traffic issue and, upon inspection, discovered the cocaine in a secret compartment. During the trial, both men claimed they did not know about the drugs, but because they shared the same lawyer, there were concerns about an actual conflict of interest that seemed to affect their defense. The case stemmed from an incident on April 25, 2012, when an officer pulled their truck over. The officer had suspicions about the trip based on the men's log books and their explanations about stops they made along the way. The prosecutor argued that it was more likely that either Cruz-Brizuela or Guevara had placed the cocaine in the trailer during a long stop during their journey. Both men argued that their lawyer’s conflict made it impossible for him to defend them properly, as he could not use certain evidence to benefit one without hurting the other. Because their defense relied on the idea that neither of them knew about the drugs, the conflict prevented their lawyer from arguing effectively. The court found that the actual conflict had indeed affected the counsel's performance and, thus, both convictions were reversed. The judges agreed that it was important for defendants to have lawyers without conflicting interests to ensure a fair trial. The case was remanded for new trials where both Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara could have separate attorneys who could focus on their individual defenses. So, the outcome was that Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were given another chance to defend themselves against the charges, this time with legal representation that wasn’t hindered by conflicts of interest.

Continue ReadingF-2014-279

J-2014-326

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2014-326, J.L. appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Dangerous Weapon on School Property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm J.L.’s adjudication of delinquency. One judge dissented. The case began when a petition was filed against J.L. on August 16, 2013, highlighting the two charges. The lower court found J.L. delinquent on April 8, 2014. J.L. argued that the evidence was not enough to show that he intended to harm someone. He also claimed that there wasn’t proof that the knife he had was indeed a dangerous weapon against school rules and that the judge acted like a prosecutor instead of remaining neutral. The court looked at the evidence closely. They needed to see if any reasonable person could find J.L. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite some conflicting testimony about the events, the evidence presented was enough to support the conclusion that J.L. committed an assault with a dangerous weapon. Regarding J.L.'s second point about the knife, the court determined that photographs provided were adequate to prove that it was a prohibited weapon on school grounds. In the third argument, J.L. said the judge did not stay neutral when he handled the knife in court. The judge asked someone to bring in the knife and then had J.L. confirm that the knife shown was similar to his. Since J.L. didn’t object to this during the trial, he could not complain about it later unless he could prove it was a serious mistake. The court explained that J.L. had to show that there was a real error that changed the outcome of the case. Since he couldn’t show this, the court decided not to take action on his claims. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision that J.L. was delinquent for the charges against him. The opinion concluded with directions for the lower court to adjust one of the charges to a lesser offense.

Continue ReadingJ-2014-326

F-2012-703

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-703, Heather Ann Jones appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder, Robbery Committed by Two or More Persons, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Robbery but otherwise affirmed the Judgment and Sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. Heather Ann Jones was found guilty after a jury trial in Sequoyah County. The jury sentenced her to fifteen years for Second Degree Murder, five years for Robbery, a fine for Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, and one year in jail for Child Neglect, with all sentences running at the same time. Jones raised several issues on appeal. First, she questioned whether there was enough evidence to support her convictions. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's decisions, as it showed that Jones knew her accomplices intended to commit robbery. Even though initially the victim let them in, it was shown that they used deception to gain entry, which made their actions unlawful. Second, Jones argued that it was wrong for the trial court to allow testimony about her behavior during a TV interview after her daughter was shot. The court found that while the video of the interview was inadmissible, the investigator’s testimony about her demeanor did not count as hearsay and did not unfairly affect the trial. Jones also claimed that statements made by a witness to the police were wrongly admitted, claiming it deprived her of a fair trial. Despite the admission being deemed an error, the court ruled that since the witness testified in court about the same things, the error did not impact the outcome significantly. Jones's objection to some character evidence used against her related to her behavior following her daughter’s shooting was dismissed, as the court believed it directly supported the charge of Child Neglect. She also argued that being convicted for both Robbery and Second Degree Murder was unfairly punishing her twice for the same act. The court agreed, finding that the acts were part of the same crime, so they reversed her conviction for Robbery. In terms of ineffective assistance of counsel, Jones claimed her lawyer should have objected to several pieces of evidence, including the TV interview, police statements, and character evidence. The court ruled that her lawyer's performance did not prejudicially affect the outcome because the decisions were matters of which objections would not have made a difference. Finally, Jones asked for a review of all issues together, hoping that their combined impact on her trial would show that she did not receive a fair trial. However, the court found the errors were not enough to change the outcome. Overall, the court reversed Jones's conviction for Robbery but affirmed the rest of her convictions and sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2012-703

RE-2012-1076

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1076, Stacy Gene Bellis appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Stacy Gene Bellis had originally pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and was sentenced to twelve years, with part of the sentence being suspended if he completed a drug treatment program. However, the State then accused Bellis of breaking the rules of his suspended sentence by committing new crimes. A hearing was held to decide the State's accusations. The judge reviewed evidence from a separate trial Bellis had regarding new charges against him. The judge used this evidence to justify revoking Bellis's suspended sentence. Bellis appealed this decision, arguing that it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from his other trial without his agreement. The court agreed with Bellis, stating that it was not proper to take evidence from one case and use it in another without the defendant's permission. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke Bellis's suspended sentence and instructed for a new hearing to take place, where proper evidence should be presented. No other actions were ordered, and the judges involved agreed to this outcome, except for one who had a different opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2012-1076

F 2012-639

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2012-639, Marty Lee Langley appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Langley was found guilty of lewd molestation after a jury trial in Marshall County. The incident involved two separate and unrelated claims of molestation, but the jury was instructed that they could convict Langley based on either act. Langley argued that this was unfair because the jury should have agreed on one specific act. The court agreed that this was a significant error, stating that all jurors must be on the same page about which act they are considering when deciding a case. Additionally, the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that suggested the jury should convict Langley to prevent him from harming other children in the future. The court found this to be improper as it is not right to convict someone based on the idea that they might commit future crimes. While Langley had other claims about the fairness of his trial and the effectiveness of his legal counsel, the court determined that the main issue had to do with the way the jury was instructed and the prosecutor's comments. Because of these errors, Langley's original trial was deemed unfair, leading to the decision for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2012-639

F-2012-499

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-499, Richard Harold Bazemore appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child (Counts I-VI) and Lewd or Indecent Acts With a Child Under Sixteen (Count VIII). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the presentence investigation fee to $250.00. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2012-499

F-2010-547

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-547, Berry appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold Berry's conviction for Lewd Molestation but reversed his conviction for Kidnapping. One member of the court dissented. Berry was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation and Kidnapping in Tulsa County. The case involved a two-year-old girl who wandered away from her home and encountered Berry. Witnesses saw Berry beckon the girl to his truck, pick her up, and drive away. Police later found the girl in Berry's truck, seemingly unresponsive, although no definitive physical harm or evidence of sexual assault was found. Berry argued that he should not have been punished for both crimes because the acts of Lewd Molestation and Kidnapping were connected and arose from the same action. The court agreed that the crimes involved the same incident when Berry took the girl, thus violating Oklahoma's law against double punishment. They affirmed the Lewd Molestation conviction but reversed the Kidnapping conviction, indicating the offenses were inseparable in this instance. One judge disagreed, believing that the Kidnapping and Lewd Molestation were distinct, separate crimes, and thus both should stand.

Continue ReadingF-2010-547

F-2009-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-528, Jimmy Lee Baker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon After Two Or More Felony Convictions and Malicious Injury To Property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy Lee Baker was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first charge was about hurting someone with a dangerous weapon after having two or more previous felony convictions. The second charge was related to damaging someone else's property. The jury decided Baker should serve life in prison for the first charge and for the second charge, they gave him a fine but did not suggest a specific punishment. Baker argued several points during his appeal which he believed were unfair to him. Firstly, he claimed he did not get a fair trial because the state did not share important information about the main witness against him. This witness had a past with drugs and a criminal record, which could have shown that he had reasons to lie. Baker’s defense lawyer also did not use this information to help his case. Secondly, Baker felt that his lawyer did not do a good job during the sentencing part of the trial, which led to a harsher punishment than necessary. He thought the lawyer should have done more to defend him. Thirdly, Baker argued that the judge did not explain what counted as a dangerous weapon or give the jury the option of deciding on a lesser charge of simple assault and battery. He believed his lawyer should have asked the judge for these explanations. Lastly, Baker said it was wrong for the court to allow testimony about injuries to someone else that was not related to his charges. He believed this made the jury think badly of him for things he did not do. After reviewing the case, the court found that the state failed to provide Baker with evidence that could have helped his defense, specifically information about the witness that could show bias or dishonesty. Because this information was important and could have changed the outcome of the trial, the court decided to reverse Baker’s conviction and grant him a new trial. Since the court was reversing the conviction based on this issue, they did not need to look at the other arguments Baker made.

Continue ReadingF-2009-528

F-2005-1031

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1031

F 2005-281

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-281, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Charles Anthony Willingham was found guilty of four counts of lewd molestation against his adopted daughter while she was in middle school. The jury decided that Willingham should serve a total of 60 years in prison, with the sentences for each count to be served one after the other, known as consecutively. Willingham thought that his trial had many problems and raised several points in his appeal about how he did not get a fair trial. Willingham's first point was that his lawyer did a bad job by not asking the judge to give the jury clear instructions on how to consider evidence about his past wrongdoings. He believed this evidence should have been limited, but the jury did not get those instructions while the trial was happening. Instead, instructions were given at the end, which he thought was not enough. His second point was about the charges themselves. He claimed that because the charges didn’t say exactly when the events occurred, he could be tried for the same crime more than once, which is against the law. He argued this made it hard for him to properly defend himself. For his third point, Willingham said his lawyer should have used his medical records to help his case. He believed these records would show he was telling the truth about his health problems and that they would provide evidence against the accusations. His fourth point was about a doctor’s testimony. Willingham argued that the doctor's expert opinion on child psychology unfairly made the victim seem more credible, suggesting that the jury might have thought the victim was telling the truth without considering all the evidence. His fifth point involved comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Willingham believed these comments were unfair and did not help him get a fair trial. In his sixth point, Willingham asked the court to change his total sentence. He felt 60 years was too severe, especially considering the comments made by the prosecutor. Lastly, he argued that because of all the errors in his trial, he should either get a new trial or have his punishments changed. After carefully reviewing Willingham's arguments, the court decided to keep his convictions but changed his sentences to be served at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other. They found that Willingham did not show that his lawyer’s performance was so bad that it harmed his case. They agreed that he was properly notified about the charges against him and that the doctor’s testimony was acceptable. The court noted that while they thought Willingham’s sentences originally felt excessive, they decided that running them concurrently would be fairer given the circumstances. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision that held Willingham guilty but altered his punishment to reflect a more reasonable approach by having the sentences served at the same time.

Continue ReadingF 2005-281

F-2004-1096

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1096, Deon Lamar Nelson appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery Upon An Officer of State Court. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Nelson's convictions but modified the sentence for Count I to three years of imprisonment. One judge dissented in part. Nelson was found guilty by a jury for hitting two court officers. He received a longer sentence for the first charge, where he hit one officer, due to the injuries caused. The main arguments he made in his appeal included issues with how the cases were joined together, whether a defense attorney counts as an officer of the court, the admission of certain evidence that he claimed was unfair, and concerns about his competency during the trial. The court held that it was fine to join the two cases together, and they ruled that a defense attorney is indeed considered an officer of the court. Regarding the evidence about the injuries from the assault, the court mentioned that some of it shouldn't have been included since it might have affected the fairness of his sentencing. Although they found error in admitting this evidence, they still believed the overall verdicts and the remaining parts of the trial were fair. Ultimately, the court decided that Nelson's sentence for the first count of assault was too severe due to the improper evidence, and they modified it to three years, while they affirmed the conviction and sentence for the second count. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed with reducing the sentence, stating the injuries were relevant for determining the punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1096

F-2004-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1261, Jonathan Dwight Harjo appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to ten years in prison. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1261

F-2004-1065

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1065, the appellant appealed his conviction for lewd molestation, forcible oral sodomy, and exhibiting pornography to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case was tried in a district court where the appellant was found guilty on several charges and received a lengthy prison sentence. During the trial, there were issues related to expert testimony, jury instructions, and statements made by the prosecutor that the appellant argued denied him a fair trial. One problematic aspect involved a child welfare worker who said that the victim was truthful, which the court found to be inappropriate. Additionally, the trial court didn't give an important jury instruction that the appellant requested regarding inconsistent statements made by the victim, which could have helped his defense. The prosecutor also made statements that could have influenced the jury unfairly, such as referring to the appellant as a monster. Because of these and other errors combined, the court concluded that the appellant did not receive a fair trial. As a result, the court ordered a new trial to ensure justice was served.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1065

F-2003-583

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-583, Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Ronald King was found guilty of delivering a type of illegal drug. The jury decided that he should go to prison for twenty-five years and pay a fine of $30,000. King thought the trial was unfair for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence, which was the illegal drug, should not have been used in court. He believed there was not enough proof to show that the drug was really connected to him. However, the court thought that the State had enough proof to say that the evidence was properly linked to King. Second, King said he should have been able to see notes from a police officer who helped in his case. The court found that there was no mistake here because King had everything he needed from the prosecutor's file. Third, King believed his punishment was too harsh and thought the prosecutor said some unfair things during the trial that might have influenced the jury. The court agreed that the sentence was too much in terms of the fine. They lowered the fine from $30,000 to $10,000 but kept the prison sentence the same. In the end, King's prison sentence stands, but the amount he has to pay was reduced.

Continue ReadingF-2003-583

F-2003-719

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-719, Timothy Phipps appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Appellant's conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Phipps was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Muskogee County and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, with five of those years suspended. The court found that the jury had been mistakenly instructed about the minimum punishment. They believed they were allowed to sentence him to a minimum that was not accurate due to his past conviction from Arkansas. Because of this mistake, the court changed his sentence to ten years in prison with five years suspended. The court carefully reviewed everything in the case and determined that the mistake about the punishment made a difference in how the sentence was decided.

Continue ReadingF-2003-719

F 2002-1035

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1035, Russell DeWayne Dykes appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance without a Tax Stamp Affixed. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify some of the sentences. One judge dissented. Dykes was found guilty after a bench trial. The trial was held before a judge who decided his fate. Dykes received six years of imprisonment for each of the three counts. These sentences were supposed to run at the same time. Dykes argued several issues in his appeal. First, he said that the evidence against him wasn't handled properly, which made it less reliable, and that he did not get a fair trial because of that. Second, he claimed that the evidence presented by the State did not clearly show that he had the controlled substance, meaning he shouldn’t have been convicted for that crime. Third, Dykes believed that the judge gave him sentences that were longer than the law allowed. He asked for the sentences to be changed or at least reduced. He also thought the judge should have lowered his sentence based on what was said during an earlier part of the trial. Lastly, he argued that the combined effect of all these issues led to an unfair trial. After looking closely at all of Dykes' claims and the court documents, the judges decided that Dykes did not have a strong enough argument about the chain of evidence. They believed that even though Dykes raised questions about how the evidence was handled, there was still enough proof for a reasonable person to believe he was guilty. The court also agreed that although the sentences were initially longer than what was allowed, the errors could be fixed. They decided to lower the sentences: for the assault charge, Dykes would serve five years instead of six, and for the possession charge without a tax stamp, the court changed it to two years. In conclusion, the court affirmed that Dykes was guilty and solidified the evidence used, but they modified two of his sentences to fit what the law allowed.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1035

F 2001-378

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-378, Phillip Scott Coulter appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Phillip Scott Coulter was found guilty by a jury in a case about serious allegations of wrongdoing involving children. The trial happened in Kingfisher County, and the jury decided to give him a sentence of five years for each count. These sentences would be served one after the other. Coulter did not agree with the decision and asked the court to review the case. He raised several points to argue why the decision should be overturned. First, he said that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to support his conviction. He believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he acted inappropriately with any child. Next, he claimed that the prosecutor used improper tactics during the trial that made it unfair. He also said that his lawyer did not represent him well and this made it harder for him to defend himself in court. Lastly, he pointed out that he was not allowed to properly question one of the witnesses about things that had happened to her before, which he believed was important for his defense. After looking at all these arguments and the evidence presented during the trial, the court agreed that one of Coulter's rights was not respected. Specifically, they ruled that he was not allowed to question the witness in a way that could show whether she was being honest. This was important because it affected the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the conviction and said there would have to be a new trial. Since they were reversing the case based on this issue, they did not need to rule on the other arguments Coulter had made. In summary, the court found that Coulter's right to confront and question his accuser was not honored, leading to their decision to grant him a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-378

F-2001-264

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-264, Gavin Lee Hawkins appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for one count and modify the sentence for the other count. One judge dissented. Gavin Lee Hawkins was found guilty of two counts of lewd molestation in Grady County. The jury sentenced him to serve ten years for the first count and twenty years for the second count, with both sentences to be served one after the other. Hawkins appealed, raising several issues he believed were errors that affected his trial. First, Hawkins argued that the prosecutor made a mistake during her closing arguments, which he thought was serious enough to affect the outcome of the case. The court agreed that the closing argument was improper and decided to change the twenty-year sentence for the second count to ten years. Next, Hawkins claimed that the trial court did not consider all the options when deciding his sentence. However, the court found no evidence that the trial court failed to do its job correctly in this regard. Hawkins also said he should have been allowed to call a witness named Bianca Thomas, but the court decided that the trial judge acted within reason when excluding her from testifying. Lastly, Hawkins felt that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial. While the court agreed that his lawyer's performance was not up to standard, they concluded that it did not negatively impact Hawkins's case overall. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision for the first count of lewd molestation and adjusted the sentence for the second count to ten years, while still keeping the sentence structure as ordered by the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2001-264

F-2001-687

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, #1 appealed his conviction for #Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #the case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. #2 dissented. Summary: The appellant, a person accused of writing bad checks, entered a plea in 1995 but later faced problems with following court rules. She was supposed to pay money back for the checks she wrote, but she didn't pay all of it. Over the years, the state said she had not done what she needed to do, like meeting with a probation officer and paying fees. As a result, her sentence was changed and she spent time in jail. The appellant had two cases against her. The first case involved writing four bad checks totaling $140, but she was told to pay back over $6,000, which she felt was too much. She argued that the court should not make her pay for other checks she wasn't charged with. The second case involved her admitting guilt for a poor check and being given jail time that was suspended, meaning she wouldn't go to jail unless she misbehaved. But the state also said she didn’t follow the rules connected to this case. During the hearings, the court decided she had broken the rules, leading to her jail time and fees. The key issues in her appeal were whether she should pay restitution for other checks and whether the amounts charged were fair. The court found that the records were unclear, so they sent the case back to get more facts about how much she really owed and if she could pay it back without it being a big problem for her or her family. The court needed to figure out three main things: why she had to pay for checks she wasn't charged with, if she could pay without hardship, and the correct amount she actually owed. The other point brought up was whether the fees for being in jail were too high and if the way those fees were charged followed the law. In conclusion, the court said the lower court needs to look at these issues again to make sure everything is fair.

Continue ReadingF-2001-687

F-2000-1427

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1427, John Vernon Dubiel appealed his conviction for possession of forged evidences of debt. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm one count of the conviction but vacated two counts. One judge dissented on the issue of sentencing. Dubiel was charged with three counts of possessing forged checks. At trial, the jury found him guilty of all counts and recommended a long sentence for each, which the judge imposed to run one after the other. After Dubiel appealed, he argued that he was unfairly punished twice for the same crime and that the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed with Dubiel on the double jeopardy argument, stating that the law allows for only one punishment for having several forged checks at the same time. Because of this, they decided to cancel two of the counts against him but upheld the conviction for the first count. The court also found that any references to Dubiel's personal drug use during the trial were not significant enough to impact the fairness of the trial. Lastly, since they reduced his conviction, they did not need to further discuss the claim about excessive sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2000-1427