In OCCA case No. N 2014-153, Harris appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court affirmed the death sentence, finding sufficient evidence of his crime and rejecting claims of an incomplete trial record. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]
In OCCA case No. F-2018-465, Wytch appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Feloniously Pointing a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. No one dissented. Wytch was found guilty of killing Julius Templeton and threatening his former girlfriend, Miranda Orr, with a gun. The events took place on December 9, 2016, after Wytch was jealous of Orr's friendship with Templeton. During a confrontation at Orr's apartment, Wytch argued with her, slapped her, and pointed a gun at her head. When Templeton tried to intervene, Wytch fatally shot him. Wytch claimed he acted in self-defense, saying that Templeton was the first aggressor. No weapon was found on Templeton, and the jury did not believe Wytch's self-defense argument. Wytch argued that evidence from previous incidents where he threatened Orr should not have been allowed in the trial, but the court found the evidence relevant to show motive and intent. Wytch also claimed that the prosecutor's arguments unfairly suggested he had to prove his innocence, but the court ruled the prosecutor's comments were appropriate, aiming to highlight the lack of evidence supporting Wytch's testimony. Finally, Wytch complained that his sentences were too harsh. He was given life without parole for murder and ten years for pointing a gun at Orr, which were the maximum sentences. The court disagreed and did not find the sentences excessive based on the nature of the crimes. Overall, the court upheld Wytch's convictions and sentences, affirming the findings of the lower court.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-958, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remand the case for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Gregory Antwon O'Neal, who was convicted for the murder of his two-month-old daughter, Tianna Marie O'Neal. The events began on May 17, 2007, when O'Neal and the child's mother brought Tianna to a hospital because she was unresponsive. At the hospital, doctors found Tianna had multiple injuries, the most serious being a skull fracture that resulted in brain swelling and ultimately her death the following day. Throughout the trial, the prosecution argued that O'Neal had either directly caused the injuries or allowed someone else to do so. O'Neal claimed that Tianna had fallen off a folding chair earlier that day and did not admit to any violent behavior. However, the medical evidence suggested that the injuries were consistent with abuse rather than accidental harm. The prosecution presented multiple medical experts who testified that the injuries Tianna suffered were serious and not likely to have occurred from normal accidents. O'Neal made several statements that appeared to change over time regarding how Tianna was injured. His comments while in custody were interpreted as signs of guilt. For example, when speaking to friends and family from jail, he seemed more worried about the potential consequences for himself rather than the well-being of his daughter. The prosecution used these statements to argue that O'Neal demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. The trial featured a defense expert who suggested that similar injuries could potentially happen through accidental means, which contradicted the prosecution's claims. Despite this, the jury found O'Neal guilty, leading to a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, O'Neal argued several points, including the sufficiency of the evidence against him, claims of errors during the trial, and ineffective assistance of his counsel. The court's opinion examined these arguments, ultimately deciding that there was enough evidence to support the conviction. However, the court recognized an issue regarding the prosecutor's conduct during closing arguments, finding that the use of a doll as a prop during closing to dramatize the potential abuse was inappropriate and could have improperly influenced the jury. As a result, the court upheld O'Neal's conviction but ordered a new hearing for re-sentencing, emphasizing the need for proper conduct in courtroom arguments. One judge dissented, arguing that the prosecutor's actions did not merit a new sentencing as they did not sufficiently affect the trial's outcome. In conclusion, the court reiterated the importance of safeguards in the legal process, highlighting the need for a fair trial where jury members follow the evidence and court instructions rather than emotional appeals during closing arguments.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1059, Cristopher Lyn Kibbe appealed his conviction for various crimes, including Attempted Second Degree Burglary, Second Degree Burglary, Driving with a Revoked License, and Conspiracy to Commit Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence on the second and third counts, but modify the sentence on the attempted burglary to ten years. One judge dissented. Kibbe was found guilty by a jury and received a twenty-year sentence for each of the first two counts, while a fine of $100 was imposed for driving with a revoked license. His trial raised several issues related to judicial conduct and evidence. First, Kibbe argued that his trial was shaped unfairly by improper comments or testimonies from the prosecution. He claimed that a police officer made prejudicial remarks. However, the court found that the trial judge acted appropriately by not ordering a mistrial, as the errors cited were not fundamentally harmful to the fairness of the trial. Second, Kibbe contended that the evidence presented was not enough to support the jury's decision. The court determined that the testimony from his accomplice was properly corroborated and sufficient to justify the jury's verdicts. Kibbe also claimed that he was denied his right to present a full defense. Parts of his statements to police were not allowed into evidence. However, the court noted that many of Kibbe's exculpatory statements were presented before the jury, so it was unclear if additional statements would have made a difference. The appeal included complaints about evidence used during the sentencing phase. Kibbe's prior convictions were mentioned, and he argued that they should not have been because they were from similar transactions. The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to allow those convictions as proper evidence for sentencing enhancement. Kibbe's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were largely dismissed as well. Although he pointed out several alleged wrongdoings by the prosecutor, the court found that the arguments did not amount to significant error. Ultimately, the court modified Kibbe's sentence on one of the counts due to a clear legal error regarding the length of the sentence. The court reduced this sentence from twenty years to ten years, which adhered to statutory guidelines. The court did not find that the cumulative errors impacted Kibbe’s right to a fair trial, and therefore, most of his convictions and sentences were upheld. The decision was to confirm the judgment on Counts 2 and 3, and modify the sentence on Count 1.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence for the first-degree murder charge to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and the sentence for the possession of a firearm charge to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Mario Lenard Phenix was found guilty of killing Nicholas Martin and injuring Alex Shaw during a dispute on December 31, 2010. The incident involved Phenix, his former girlfriend, and her friends after a night out at a club. Phenix had been angry after his girlfriend ended their relationship, which led to threatening phone calls and ultimately to the shooting. The trial revealed different accounts of what happened that night. Witnesses said Phenix confronted the men with a gun, fired at them, and later, after a struggle, shot Martin again while inside his car. Phenix claimed he shot in self-defense, saying Martin was armed and aggressive. However, the jury rejected this, finding him guilty of murder and other charges. During the trial, Phenix raised several issues on appeal. He argued that he should have been allowed to present a lesser charge of manslaughter. However, because his self-defense claim would have resulted in an outright acquittal if believed, the court found that the jury's instructions were sufficient. Phenix also claimed that the trial process was unfair because the order of presenting evidence might have influenced the jury's decision on punishment. The court agreed that there was a procedural error but found it did not affect the fairness of the trial or the sentence imposed, except for the first-degree murder, which was modified to allow parole. Other arguments related to the introduction of evidence about Phenix's past violent behavior and comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments were also addressed. The court found no prejudicial errors in these matters that would have affected the trial's outcome. In summary, the decision affirmed the conviction while modifying certain sentences, indicating that, despite some procedural issues, the overall due process was upheld in the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-656, Jason Kenneth Dimaggio, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including robbery and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one conviction but affirmed all others. One judge dissented. Jason Dimaggio was found guilty of several offenses that occurred during a violent crime spree in two Oklahoma counties. His crimes included robbery with a weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other charges. He received lengthy sentences, with some of them being consecutive, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, Dimaggio argued that he didn't get a fair trial for several reasons. He claimed that some evidence about other crimes should not have been allowed, and that he was denied the chance to confront witnesses due to hearsay evidence. His main points included: 1. Other-crimes evidence was presented improperly. 2. Hearsay evidence was used against him. 3. The trial court allowed irrelevant photographs of him to be shown to the jurors. 4. There was misconduct by the prosecutor. 5. The jury was incorrectly instructed about his flight after crimes. 6. The combined effect of errors denied him a fair trial. 7. The court should not have ordered his sentences to be served consecutively. 8. He was unfairly punished multiple times for the same conduct. 9. The evidence did not support some of his convictions. The court reviewed all these claims and found that the evidence about earlier crimes was acceptable as part of the overall story of the events. Although there were issues with some evidence, like the photographs, the judges felt the impact on the trial was not significant enough to change the outcome because there was strong evidence against Dimaggio from witnesses. Regarding the prosecutor’s comments during the trial, the court noted that errors weren’t severe enough to matter because they were not objected to at the time. They also agreed that the jury's instruction about flight wasn't appropriate, but again, it didn't affect the strong evidence of guilt. Dimaggio’s claims of double jeopardy (being punished twice for the same crime) regarding his convictions for assault and fleeing from a police officer were not supported. The court ruled that the crimes were separate and had different elements. However, the court did agree that he should not be convicted for possession of a controlled substance because it was part of the robbery and should not have been counted as a separate crime. Thus, that conviction was reversed. In conclusion, except for the reversed conviction, the court upheld Dimaggio's multiple sentences and affirmed the trial court’s decisions in all other respects.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-535, Joseph Lander Smith appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Smith's sentence from twenty-five years to seventeen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Joseph Lander Smith was found guilty by a jury for distributing a controlled substance after he had a previous felony conviction. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, which the judge agreed to, making it run consecutively with another sentence he was already serving. Smith raised several arguments in his appeal. He first claimed that he didn't get a fair trial because the prosecutor didn’t share important information that could have helped his case. The information was about a witness who helped the state. This witness had her own past troubles with the law but the jury was not told about them. Smith argued that this was wrong because it might have changed how the jury viewed that witness's testimony. Next, Smith said it wasn't right for the jury to know about his previous suspended sentence during the trial. He believed that mentioning this past sentence by the prosecutor made the jury biased against him and influenced the punishment they decided on. The jury even had questions about how his past might relate to their decision, which showed they were affected by this information. Smith also argued that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him by failing to investigate these issues properly. However, the court thought that the evidence against him was strong and that the errors made during the trial, while present, did not change his guilt. Still, the judge decided that the combination of these errors meant that Smith should not serve the full twenty-five years, so his sentence was reduced to seventeen years instead. Ultimately, the court affirmed Smith's conviction but changed his sentence to make it lighter, acknowledging the mistakes made during the trial without completely overturning the conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-987, Tony Brown appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary and Attempted Larceny of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Tony Brown was found guilty of breaking into a building and trying to steal a car. He was given a total sentence of 17 years in prison along with a $1,000 fine. Brown believed that he was not given a fair trial for several reasons. He said that the jury should have been told about a simpler crime related to the burglary and that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charge of attempted car theft. Brown also argued that a witness shouldn’t have been allowed to testify because it hurt his case. Additionally, he claimed that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him and that the prosecutor did things that were unfair. After looking at everything, the court found that Brown should have been given information about the simpler crime of unlawful entry, and that the jury should have considered that first. They also felt that the testimony from a detective saying Brown was lying was too much and unfairly harmed his chance to have a fair trial. Because of these issues, the court decided to reverse Brown’s convictions and send the case back for a new trial, where he could have a chance to present his defense properly.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-17, McFarland appealed his conviction for sexual battery and second-degree rape by instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for sexual battery but modified the sentence for the second-degree rape by instrumentation by vacating the $10,000 fine. One judge dissented. McFarland was found guilty of two serious crimes and was sentenced to a total of eight years in prison and fines. He argued that charging him with both crimes was unfair because they were part of the same event, meaning he faced double punishment. The court examined the evidence and determined that the acts were separate enough that charging him with both was allowed and did not violate his rights. He also claimed that the prosecutor made inappropriate comments during the trial that affected his chances for a fair trial. Some of these comments were found to be improper, but the court decided they did not seriously harm McFarland’s case. Additionally, McFarland argued that the instructions given to the jury about the fines were wrong, which led to the $10,000 fine for the second-degree rape charge being improper. The court agreed with him on this point, finding that jurors were wrongly instructed that they had to impose a fine. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction and the sentence for sexual battery, it modified the sentence for the second-degree rape charge by removing the fine.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-896, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree arson, assault and battery domestic abuse, assault and battery, and public intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments and sentences for counts I and II but modified the sentences for counts III and IV by vacating the fines imposed on those counts. One judge dissented. Michael Wayne Schulze was found guilty of starting a fire, which was labeled as first-degree arson, along with committing several misdemeanors related to domestic abuse and public intoxication. The jury recommended lengthy prison time and fines for these actions. Schulze argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt for arson. He also claimed that the instructions given to the jury were misleading regarding his possible sentences and fines. He sought modifications to the imposed fines and sentences, while also asserting that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the trial. The court examined the arguments and determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt for arson. They agreed that the jury was wrongly instructed about potential sentencing for certain charges, which warranted relief by adjusting the fines for the misdemeanor counts. However, they maintained the convictions and sentences for the arson and domestic abuse counts, deciding that the errors in jury instructions did not severely impact the outcome of the case. Overall, the court upheld the majority of the original decisions but aimed to correct parts of the sentencing that were found to be incorrect, ensuring justice was served.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-527, Thomas Terrill appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Thomas Terrill was originally charged with First Degree Murder in a case related to a death. During the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of First Degree Manslaughter and suggested a sentence of life in prison. The judge agreed with the jury's recommendation and sentenced Terrell accordingly. Terrill appealed this decision, claiming there were problems with his trial. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed manslaughter. He also contended that the prosecutor made unfair comments that likely influenced the jury, and he believed that the sentence given was too harsh. After reviewing all the arguments and the case details, the court found that, despite Terrill's claims of self-defense, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to decide that he acted in a heat of passion when he caused the victim's death. Therefore, the court did not agree with the claim that the evidence was insufficient for manslaughter. However, the court agreed with Terrill on the other two issues. It found that the prosecutor's comments, which urged the jury to think about the victim's family, were inappropriate, as these feelings should not influence the jurors' decision about the sentence. The court also mentioned that the jury had asked about the parole eligibility during their discussions, but the judge had not given them any additional instructions about this matter. The court pointed out that, based on a previous case, juries need to know relevant information about parole possibilities when deciding on a sentence. Because of these reasons, the decision was made to send the case back for a new sentencing hearing. Although Terrill's conviction for manslaughter was upheld, the previous sentence was set aside to ensure that he is given a fair opportunity during resentencing.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-989, John Fitzgerald Kessee appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Kessee was found guilty of robbing someone and had a long history of prior convictions, which led to a heavy sentence of ninety-nine years. He claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and said that the way he was tried for the second time after a mistrial violated his rights. He also argued that there were mistakes made during the sentencing that should change his punishment. After looking closely at the case and the arguments made, the court found that there was enough proof for the jury to reach a decision about Kessee’s guilt. They decided that the issues surrounding the mistrial didn’t violate his rights. However, they agreed that the way the prosecutor talked about Kessee’s past sentences was wrong and affected his right to a fair trial. As a result, the court decided to lower his sentence to forty-five years in prison instead of ninety-nine. While most judges agreed with the decision, one judge disagreed with changing the sentence, believing the jury's decision should stand as is.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-576, Jimmy Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Phillips was found guilty after a trial in the Rogers County District Court. The jury recommended that he serve a total of 34 years in prison—12 years for the first count and 22 years for the second count. Phillips argued that he did not get a fair trial because of inappropriate remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The court examined the entire case, including records and evidence presented. They agreed that some comments made by the prosecutor were improper and potentially harmful. For example, the prosecutor suggested his personal belief in the case and made remarks that tied the actions to a divine judgment, which the court found inappropriate. Despite recognizing these issues, the court concluded that they did not warrant a complete reversal of the convictions. Instead, they determined that Phillips’ sentences should run concurrently, meaning he would serve the time at the same time rather than back-to-back. This decision aimed to address the improper comments while still upholding the jury's verdict.