In OCCA case No. F-2008-1095, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from life imprisonment to forty-five years due to prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of excessive photographic evidence. One judge dissented, arguing that the initial conviction and sentence should have been upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-638, Watson appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse some of his convictions, modify others, and rescind certain fines. One judge dissented. Watson was found guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm during a felony, and other charges. He was sentenced to many years in prison, with his sentences running one after another. Watson argued that the search warrant used to search his home was not valid, that he was unfairly tried for multiple offenses that seemed to be the same crime, that he had been treated unfairly during the trial, and that he didn’t have good representation from his attorney. The court looked closely at the evidence and found that the warrant to search his home was valid. They noticed that the charges for drug trafficking should not have occurred at the same time for methamphetamine and cocaine since this counted as double punishment for one act. Therefore, they decided to reverse that conviction. They also reversed the conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun because it was tied to the same act as possessing a firearm during the crime. The court agreed there was enough evidence to support his convictions for having a firearm during a felony and for concealing stolen property. They noted that while the prosecutor made a small mistake during their closing argument, it was unlikely that it would change the outcome of the case since the evidence against Watson was strong. Watson's convictions were modified, which means his sentences were reduced. The court overturned specific unfair fines and affirmed the remaining charges, stating that the changes would not shock anyone’s sense of fairness. The judges believed the final combined sentence still made sense and was fair. In conclusion, while the court made changes to Watson’s convictions and sentences, they found most of the trial's foundation to be reasonable, ensuring that these decisions aligned with the law. The case will return to the lower court to fix some details in line with the appellate court's ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-432, Anthony Wayne McCosar appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Threatening an Act of Violence, Public Intoxication, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate certain fines but affirmed the other parts of the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-60, Valenta E. Thompson appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes including first-degree rape, sodomy, kidnapping, and witness intimidation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold some of the convictions while reversing others. One judge dissented. Valenta E. Thompson faced serious charges in the District Court of Muskogee County. He was found guilty by a jury of crimes that included rape and sodomy, among others. The jury recommended significant sentences, leading to Thompson receiving life imprisonment for some charges and lesser sentences for others. In his appeal, Thompson raised many issues. He argued that he did not receive a fair trial, citing that he was not properly informed of the elements of some charges. Specifically, he mentioned that the jury wasn't instructed about the components necessary to prove anal sodomy and witness intimidation. These mistakes were recognized as severe enough to warrant a reversal of those convictions. Thompson also claimed that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for rape, and he argued that incorrect jury instructions regarding his potential sentences impacted his case. In addition, he pointed out that the prosecutor had made improper comments during the trial about plea deals, and that his own lawyer did not provide adequate representation throughout the process. The court carefully reviewed all the arguments and the entire record of the case. They found that the lack of instruction for some charges was a significant error. This was particularly true for witness intimidation, where the jury did not understand what needed to be proven for a conviction. Because of this, those specific counts were reversed. However, regarding the charge of first-degree rape and other offenses, the court found enough evidence to support the convictions. The judges determined that despite the errors concerning instructions, Thompson's sentences for the remaining counts were appropriate and should be upheld. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences for most of Thompson's convictions while reversing and remanding the convictions related to anal sodomy and witness intimidation for further proceedings. Some judges agreed with this decision, but one judge dissented, believing that the convictions should not have been reversed.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-909, Val Wilkerson appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence from thirty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Val Wilkerson was found guilty by a jury in Haskell County for a serious crime. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years in prison. After the trial, Wilkerson felt that things went wrong and he raised several points to appeal. First, he argued that the State used too much unfair evidence from other incidents that made him look bad. He thought this made the trial unfair. Second, he believed it was wrong for the prosecutors and police to mention that he had stayed quiet when asked questions. Third, he said the court did not give the jury the correct instructions. Lastly, he claimed that all these mistakes together made his trial unfair. The Court looked over everything carefully and agreed that the way other crimes were presented was a problem. They found that even though some earlier actions of Wilkerson were similar to what he was accused of, the older incidents happened a long time ago and should not have been brought up so much in his trial. The Court determined that while some bad evidence was allowed, the main evidence against Wilkerson was enough for the jury to find him guilty. However, the additional bad evidence likely influenced the length of the sentence because the prosecutor asked the jury to consider these past actions when deciding on punishment. Since the Court believed that the jury was distracted by this unfair evidence while deciding on the punishment, they changed the sentence to fifteen years instead of thirty. They also concluded that other issues raised by Wilkerson either did not affect the trial’s fairness or were fixed by the trial court’s instructions. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but agreed that the punishment was too harsh and lowered it. One judge disagreed and believed the case should be tried again.
In OCCA case No. F 2007-201, Kristopher Lee Morphew appealed his conviction for Second-degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Morphew's Judgment and Sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Morphew was found guilty of Second-degree Murder after a jury trial. The jury decided on a punishment of twenty years of prison time. However, Morphew argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to several reasons, including ineffective help from his lawyer, errors in jury instructions, and misconduct by the prosecution. The main issue that led to the court's decision was about how the jury was instructed regarding what depraved mind meant in the context of Second-degree Murder. The jury was confused about a key part of the instruction, and the trial judge did not clarify it properly. Because of this, the court found that the instructions did not adequately explain the law and could have led to a misunderstanding during the trial. Since this error was significant enough to possibly change the outcome of the case, the court concluded that Morphew deserved a new trial. The other points raised by Morphew were not discussed because the error regarding jury instructions was sufficient to reverse the conviction. In summary, the court's decision sends Morphew back for a new trial to ensure he receives a fair chance to defend himself under the correct laws and instructions.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-690, Eduardo Rivera Fajardo appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction on the latter two counts and to modify the sentence for the drug trafficking conviction. One member of the court dissented. Fajardo was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and marijuana, failing to obtain a tax stamp for these drugs, and possessing drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to a total of 44 years in prison and hefty fines. The appeal raised several issues including whether there was enough evidence for the convictions and whether the arguments made by the prosecutor were improper. The court ruled that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to find Fajardo guilty. However, the court noted that the prosecutor had exceeded appropriate arguments during the trial. Still, they determined that this did not deprive Fajardo of a fair trial since the evidence against him was strong. However, the court recognized that the way the punishment was presented to the jury was confusing and that it could have affected the sentence given to Fajardo for drug trafficking. As such, they decided to modify Fajardo’s sentence for that conviction from 44 years to 25 years in prison along with a reduced fine. Ultimately, the court affirmed the conviction on the drug tax stamp and possession charges but modified the prison sentence for drug trafficking, ensuring that any errors in the trial process were addressed.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-381, the appellant appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse, lewd or indecent proposals, and forcible oral sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand count two while affirming the remaining counts. One judge dissented. Brandon Donell Harris was found guilty of the three offenses in the District Court of Oklahoma County and was given a total of 21 years in prison to serve consecutively. He argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to prove he committed the sexual abuse of a child, that he was wrongfully convicted of lewd acts, that there were issues with the prosecutors' conduct, and that improper comments were made by the trial court during jury selection. The court looked at the evidence and felt that enough was presented to support the sexual abuse conviction, so they upheld that verdict. However, they found that the second count concerning lewd acts required that the child witness the acts, which did not happen in this case. Therefore, they reversed that conviction and instructed for it to be dismissed, while keeping the other convictions intact. For the claims of prosecutorial misconduct and improper trial comments, the court noted that there were no objections made during the trial, so they reviewed these for plain error. They determined that the prosecutor's comments did not significantly impact Harris's right to a fair trial, nor did the trial court's remarks affect the jury's decision. In conclusion, the court reversed the conviction for the lewd acts while affirming the other two convictions and decided that Harris should not be retried on the lewd acts charge. One judge disagreed with the decision to reverse count two, believing the evidence was sufficient to support all charges.
In OCCA case No. M-2006-1334, Michael David Williams appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for one count but reversed the other, instructing that charge be dismissed. One member of the court dissented. Michael David Williams was charged with two counts of misdemeanor Domestic Abuse after incidents involving his wife. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for both counts, though one fine was not imposed. Williams claimed errors in the trial regarding witness statements, insufficient evidence for his conviction, and misconduct by the prosecution. During the trial, Williams' wife testified that no abuse had occurred and that injuries she had were due to a fight with her aunt and an accident. However, earlier police statements made by her during investigations indicated otherwise. Williams argued the trial court should not have allowed these statements without proper instruction on how the jury could use them. The court noted that it could allow witness statements to be used for impeachment purposes, even if the witness didn't fully recall making them. However, the court found that the jury might have been misled about how to use those statements in one of the cases, leading to confusion regarding the evidence of guilt. The court affirmed Williams' conviction for the first case, where there was a lot of strong evidence against him, including police testimony and photographs of the scene. However, for the second case, the court ruled that the evidence presented was not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They decided to reverse this conviction and ordered it to be dismissed. In conclusion, the court upheld the conviction for the first incident but reversed the second due to insufficient evidence and errors in how the trial was conducted.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-905, Curtis Dale Gibson appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of Two Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of conviction but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gibson was tried by a jury in Jackson County and found guilty of raping a victim. The jury sentenced him to thirty years in prison. Gibson raised several issues in his appeal, including whether he received a fair trial, due to certain evidence being allowed and comments made by the prosecutor. He also argued that he should have received an instruction about parole eligibility and that his prior suspended sentence for another crime should not have been discussed during the trial. The court looked at each point raised by Gibson. It found that the statements from the victim's sister, which claimed she had also been a victim of Gibson, were not hearsay and were admitted correctly. The prosecutor's comments during the trial were not seen as causing enough harm to reverse the decision. However, the court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule regarding when Gibson could be eligible for parole, which was considered a mistake. As a result, the court affirmed Gibson's guilty verdict but changed his sentence, ordering that he be resentenced on account of this issue. The judges involved reached various conclusions, with one judge expressing disagreement with the decision to remand for resentencing.
In OCCA case No. M-2005-375, the appellant appealed his conviction for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Failing to Register a Vehicle, and Failing to Carry Security Verification. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and Failing to Carry valid Security Verification and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Failing to Register a Vehicle was also reversed with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involves an appellant who was convicted after a jury trial in Love County. He was sentenced to a total of over two years in prison and ordered to pay restitution for damages. Appellant raised several issues on appeal, primarily arguing that the trial court made mistakes during the trial, including allowing improper questioning about a previously withdrawn guilty plea and imposing an illegal punishment. The trial started with the appellant being arrested for multiple offenses related to driving and vehicle registration. At first, he agreed to plead guilty but decided to withdraw that plea after getting legal help. During his trial, the prosecution wrongly questioned him about that guilty plea, which was acknowledged as an error by both sides. This error was seen as significant enough to potentially affect the jury's decision, therefore, the court believed a new trial was necessary. For the offense of Failing to Register a Vehicle, the court found that the punishment given was not within the law's limits. Furthermore, the state agreed that the appellant should not have been charged under Oklahoma law since the vehicle was bought out of state. Thus, the conviction for this offense was also overturned. In conclusion, the court acted to protect the fairness of the trial process by ordering new trials for some convictions and dismissing others. The decision addressed important legal standards and ensured that justice was served correctly.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-648, Cynthia Fern Izon appealed her conviction for embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Cynthia Fern Izon was accused of embezzling money while working as an officer, and a jury found her guilty. After the jury couldn't agree on her punishment, the judge decided that she should serve 40 years in prison. However, 15 of those years were suspended, meaning she would not have to serve them right away, and she was also fined $1,000 and told to pay back $81,000. Cynthia felt that her trial had several problems, and she raised many points during her appeal. First, she said she didn't get proper representation because she chose to represent herself without understanding the risks involved. However, the court found that she clearly stated her wish to represent herself, received help from a standby lawyer, and understood what she was doing. Cynthia also claimed misconduct by the prosecutors made her trial unfair, but the court ruled that these actions didn't deny her a fair trial. She argued that her sentence was too harsh, and the court agreed that there had been an error in how long she could be punished for embezzlement. The original laws meant her punishment should not exceed 10 years, and the court modified her sentence accordingly. Another point Cynthia made was about whether paying restitution would hurt her family financially. The court noted that the trial judge should have considered this but decided that the restitution order was still valid. In addition, Cynthia claimed she faced double punishment because of the restitution and prison time, but the court found this did not violate any laws. The court also mentioned that she was warned about not testifying on her behalf and said there was no evidence that stopped her from presenting evidence. Regarding her husband, who she believed might have lied on the stand, the court ruled that she didn't raise this issue properly during the trial, so it couldn't be revisited now. Cynthia argued that she was denied a speedy trial, but the court decided that the delays were largely due to her actions. While several of her claims were dismissed, the court did agree to lower her sentence to comply with the law regarding embezzlement. In the end, the court upheld Cynthia Fern Izon's conviction but changed her sentence to 10 years in prison, along with the fine and restitution.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-991, Causey appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Causey was found guilty after a jury trial and given a 15-year prison sentence. He claimed there were several mistakes made during his trial. 1. He argued that the jury was not told he would have to serve 85% of his sentence. 2. He also said that the court let hearsay from the child victim be used against him without checking if it was trustworthy. 3. Causey felt he was not allowed to present his side of the story properly. 4. He criticized the decision to give instructions about flight, suggesting it was unfair. 5. He pointed out issues with witnesses who supported the victim’s truths, saying it affected the fairness of his trial. 6. He was concerned that the victim testified holding a doll, which he believed was inappropriate. 7. Causey said his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not try to stop the search of his home. 8. He claimed that all these mistakes combined made the trial unfair. The court agreed that the trial had serious errors, particularly with how hearsay was handled and the statements about the victim's truthfulness. These mistakes meant that Causey did not receive a fair trial. The court ordered that he should get a new trial and said that future juries should be informed about the 85% requirement of the sentence. They did not need to provide further solutions for other issues since the main decision was enough to overturn the case.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-301, Peggy L. Caves appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Caves' conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. The case involved Peggy L. Caves, who was found guilty of neglecting an adult in her care. The jury suggested a $10,000 fine, and the judge agreed to this sentence. Caves argued that there were several mistakes during her trial, including that there wasn't enough evidence to prove her guilt, and that she didn't get a fair trial because of various reasons, such as improper juror conduct and irrelevant testimony. The court looked closely at the arguments Caves made. They found that there was enough evidence showing that Caves neglected the adult in question. They also determined that she was aware of the charges against her, so the fact that the evidence presented matched the charges was not a problem. One key argument was about whether Caves did everything she could to help the adult in her care. While Caves said she did not think the person needed help, the court noted that unless a doctor declares a person dead, help must be given. The court concluded that the rules related to Do Not Resuscitate orders did not apply in this case. The court agreed that certain evidence, like the mention of a civil suit against Caves' employer, was not necessary and could have influenced the jury unfairly. Because of this, they decided to lower Caves' fine from $10,000 to $7,500. In the end, the court kept the conviction but changed the amount of the fine due to the identified errors and the impact they might have had on the jury's decision. One judge disagreed with lowering the fine, believing that Caves was already fortunate to only receive a fine without jail time.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-352, Jerome Monroe appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reversed the sentence and sent the case back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Jerome Monroe was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Ronda Doyle, on December 24, 2004. He shot her in the face while they were at home. Monroe claimed that the gun went off by accident while he was trying to unload it. After the shooting, he tried to hide the body and lied to family members about Doyle's whereabouts. The jury had the option to sentence Monroe to life in prison or life without the possibility of parole. He argued that the court should have instructed the jury about the rules regarding parole eligibility. The court later decided that such instructions should be given in these cases, making Monroe eligible for this benefit. Monroe also believed he should have received instructions on a lesser charge of second-degree manslaughter. The court found that while the evidence might support some form of manslaughter, Monroe had admitted to trying to handle the gun while intoxicated, which did not warrant a lesser charge. Regarding Monroe's actions after the shooting, the court explained that his attempts to cover up the crime could be seen as evidence of guilt. Although he wanted his lawyer to object to certain evidence, the court concluded there was no harm since the jury could rightly consider such actions. Monroe argued that his lawyer was not effective, claiming that the lawyer didn't use important information about a witness’s statement. However, the court found that even without the alleged mistakes, Monroe could not show that he was harmed by any of the lawyer's actions. Overall, the court concluded that the main issue in the case was the jury's instructions about the possibility of parole. They determined that the absence of instructions about the 85% rule could have affected the outcome and thus decided the case should be sent back for resentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1145, Robert Lee Peace appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-429, David Michael Graham appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the restitution order. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of Lewd Molestation. The jury recommended that he serve 20 years in prison for each count, with the last 10 years suspended under probation conditions. The judge also ordered him to pay $10,000 to each victim. In his appeal, Graham argued several things. First, he claimed that the way the prosecutors behaved during the trial made it unfair. He also said the judge didn’t properly inform the jury about how much of his sentence he would have to serve before getting paroled. Lastly, he felt the restitution amount was too high and lacked support from facts. After reviewing the case, the court agreed there was some misconduct but concluded it did not affect the conviction. The appeal also highlighted that the jury should have been told that he needed to serve 85% of his sentence, which led to changing the sentences to concurrent rather than consecutive. The judges found the order for restitution of $10,000 per count was not backed by evidence, so that part was dismissed. The overall opinion was that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences needed to be modified, and the restitution removed. One judge disagreed with modifying the sentences to run concurrently, believing the original sentencing was appropriate.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-598, Timmy Eugene Owen appealed his conviction for escaping from Grady County Jail and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Owen's convictions but reverse his sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented from the opinion. Timmy Eugene Owen was convicted for two crimes: escaping from jail and assaulting a police officer. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison for the escape and ten years for the assault. Owen appealed this decision, claiming that he did not get a fair trial because of several reasons. First, he argued that the trial judge should have given him a mistrial due to improper questions from the prosecutor during the trial. However, the court said the judge did not make a mistake because the questions asked did not unfairly influence the jury's decision. Owen also claimed that the prosecutor acted unethically during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court agreed that some of the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate but believed they did not change the outcome of the trial. They said that despite these comments, the evidence against Owen was very strong. Additionally, Owen believed that his sentences were too harsh. He felt it was unfair to receive a life sentence for escaping from jail and ten years for the assault. The court did not change the life sentence for the escape but suggested that all sentences might need reconsideration because they found that the prosecutor's words affected the sentencing. Owen also raised an issue about being punished twice for the two different crimes. However, the court stated that the two crimes were separate and required different evidence, so they did not violate any laws about double punishment. In the end, while the court affirmed Owen's guilty verdicts, saying he was rightly found guilty for both charges, they reversed the sentences and sent the case back to lower court for a new sentencing. A judge disagreed, believing the trial was fair despite the errors.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1193, Tamara Marine Davis appealed her conviction for Accessory to Felony Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to twenty-five years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Davis was found guilty of helping her husband after a murder had occurred. She assisted him in hiding evidence and lying to the police. At her trial, Davis presented several arguments for why her conviction and sentence should be overturned. First, she claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove she was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. The court disagreed, ruling that her actions showed she knew the victim was dead when she assisted her husband in getting rid of the victim's belongings and fleeing the state. Second, she argued that the jury heard improper information concerning her probation and parole history, which made them biased against her. However, the court noted that this information was raised by Davis herself to show the witness's bias, so it did not warrant reversal of the conviction. Third, she contended that misconduct by the prosecutor deprived her of a fair trial. The court found that while there were some issues with the prosecutor's questions, they did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Davis also claimed she received ineffective assistance from her attorney. The court found that the lawyer's performance was acceptable and that Davis could not show any harm resulting from their actions. Furthermore, she believed the introduction of some irrelevant evidence was unfair. However, the court determined that the evidence did not unduly sway the jury's decision. Davis argued the length of her sentence was too harsh compared to her involvement in the crime, and the court agreed, reducing her sentence from forty years to twenty-five. Lastly, the court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a different result in the trial. Thus, while the court affirmed the conviction, it took action to lessen the punishment given to Davis.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1058, Shaynathian Rashaud Hicks appealed his conviction for multiple charges including indecent exposure, attempted rape, injury to a minor child, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for indecent exposure and remand it with instructions to dismiss. The remaining convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented regarding certain aspects of the opinion. To explain further, Hicks was tried and found guilty of several serious offenses. These included lewd acts like indecent exposure and attempted rape. The jury gave him a total of different sentences, with the most time for his attempted rape and injury to a minor child. Hicks felt that the evidence against him was not strong enough and presented several reasons why he thought he should win his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to show that his actions qualified as indecent exposure. The court agreed and reversed that conviction, saying the evidence didn’t show he acted in a lewd way. However, for the other charges like attempted rape and injury to a minor, the court found the evidence sufficient, so his convictions for those remained in place. Hicks also had a problem with the way the trial was conducted. He claimed that he wasn’t able to confront all the witnesses against him because some of their testimonies were taken without them being present at the trial. But the court decided the trial was fair and followed the rules. Hicks felt that mistakes were made in how the jury was instructed about the law and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. The court looked into these claims, but most were either waived or didn’t have a significant impact on the trial's outcome. In summary, while the court reversed his conviction for indecent exposure due to a lack of evidence, it upheld the other convictions because they found there was enough evidence for those offenses. Hicks’s overall arguments did not lead to a change in the other convictions, which means he must serve his sentences as determined by the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court had made a mistake by ruling that the Smiths were not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, which violated their right to legal representation. Consequently, the court reversed their sentences and ordered a new trial. One judge disagreed with the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1282, Earl Andrew Dahl, Jr., appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses including Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments of the trial court but remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Dahl was found guilty on fifty counts related to these serious crimes, and the jury recommended various sentences for these counts, which were to be served one after another (consecutively). Dahl argued several points in his appeal, including that the evidence was not strong enough to support his convictions and that the sentences were excessive. He also claimed that the prosecutor asked unfair questions during the trial and that the trial court made errors by not giving certain instructions related to the law. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that there was enough proof to uphold Dahl's convictions, as the victim's testimony was clear and trustworthy. They also noted that there were certain errors in how the trial was conducted, particularly the failure to provide an important instruction known as the 85% Rule, which affected how the jury decided on the sentencing. Because of this, the court ordered a new sentencing hearing to correct this mistake. Overall, while the convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged that the trial process had flaws, which led to their decision to allow for resentencing for Dahl.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1279, Daniel Hawkes Fears appealed his conviction for multiple counts including Murder in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence of sanity at the time of the crimes, ordering a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. One judge dissented, arguing that the jury should have had the proper instructions for a retrial instead of this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-427, Emily Michelle Dowdy appealed her conviction for First-Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modified her sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented from the decision to modify the sentence. Emily was charged after a fatal car accident that resulted in the death of another driver, Ryan Brewer. Emily's blood test later showed a high blood alcohol concentration, indicating she was driving under the influence. In her defense, she claimed she was involuntarily intoxicated, suggesting that she may have been given a drug without her knowledge, such as GHB or rohypnol, often associated with date-rape cases. Emily argued that she could not remember what happened after she took a friend to her car at a bar. The trial included a significant amount of expert testimony regarding the effects of GHB, but the state argued that Emily was likely just drunk from alcohol. Various witnesses testified about her drinking at the bar that night and her generally good driving record. On appeal, Emily raised several arguments regarding the fairness of her trial, alleging ineffective assistance of her counsel, improper admission of certain evidence regarding her character, and comments made by the prosecutor. The court reviewed testimony regarding whether Emily had been properly advised about her rights during police questioning and whether any misconduct had affected the jurors' views. After thorough review, the court concluded that the trial was fair overall, although it noted that one witness's hearsay testimony, which was not properly admissible, could have potentially influenced the jury's view of Emily. Ultimately, this led to a modification of her sentence, although the conviction itself remained intact. The dissenting judge felt that the original forty-year sentence was appropriate and did not believe that the limited hearsay testimony had a significant impact on the final outcome.