In OCCA case No. F 2003-1163, Christopher Ray Murphy appealed his conviction for four counts of indecent or lewd acts with a child under sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-959, Tomas DeLeon, III appealed his conviction for five counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Tomas DeLeon, III was found guilty of crimes against children. A jury decided on the punishment for these crimes, saying he should go to prison for a total of about 14 years. He did not like the decision and asked the court to review it. He said that there were many mistakes made during his trial. First, DeLeon thought there wasn’t enough evidence to support one of the counts against him. He also said that his lawyer didn’t help him well. His lawyer didn’t try to cancel one of the charges, didn’t argue well during the trial, and didn’t use some evidence that could help DeLeon. DeLeon also complained that the people who were trying to prove he was guilty acted in a way that unfairly influenced the jury during their closing statements. He felt it wasn’t fair because they talked about other bad things he had done in the past. DeLeon argued that the judge didn’t make sure everything was recorded properly for his appeal, which hurt his rights. Then, he mentioned that the judge said he could not earn “good time,” which is a way prisoners can reduce their sentences for good behavior. Finally, he believed there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he did the bad things they said he did. He thought the errors and problems during the trial were so strong that the court should either take away his convictions or lessen his punishments. After looking closely at everything, the court decided that the convictions should stay as they were. They found that DeLeon hadn’t shown enough proof that his lawyer made big mistakes. They felt that the choices made during his trial didn’t create any serious unfairness. However, they did agree that the judge made a mistake by saying DeLeon could not earn “good time.” They ordered that this part of the decision should be removed from his sentence. But overall, the court upheld the jury's decision, meaning DeLeon will still go to prison for the crimes he was convicted of.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1316, Jason Van Dusen appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation and First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to thirty years of imprisonment for each count, to be served one after the other. One judge dissented. Van Dusen was found guilty in Blaine County after a trial. The jury decided on the sentences based on what they heard during the trial. Van Dusen raised concerns about not having a fair sentencing because information was given about parole and the length of the sentences. He also claimed that the prosecutor acted in a way that was unfair, which made his trial not just. The court looked carefully at everything from the trial and the arguments made by both sides. They agreed that the prosecutor should not have mentioned parole in the closing arguments, which is why they decided to change Van Dusen's sentences from seventy-five years to thirty years for each count, making the total time to be sixty years. The judges felt that this was a fair adjustment, considering the improper comments made during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-747, John Carl Marquez appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee, and Domestic Abuse, Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Resisting a Police Officer and Domestic Abuse but modified the sentence for the charge of Prisoner Placing Bodily Fluids from life imprisonment to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the length of the modified sentence. The case involved an incident where Marquez got into a fight with his wife after a night of drinking. His wife called her parents for help, which led to the police being called. When officers arrived at their trailer, Marquez was found in the bathtub and refused to cooperate. After struggling with the officers, he was handcuffed and later spat on one of them. The jury convicted him for several offenses based on this behavior, and the trial court initially sentenced him to one year for the first and third counts and life imprisonment for the second count. During the appeal, Marquez argued that the life sentence was too harsh and that his arrest was illegal. The court found the arrest was lawful, the prosecution’s conduct was acceptable, and the cumulative errors did not deny him a fair trial. However, the court agreed that the life sentence for a non-violent act, such as spitting, was excessive and changed it to thirty years, citing a need for more reasonable sentencing. While the majority of the court upheld most of the trial court's decisions, a dissenting judge expressed that even the thirty-year sentence was excessive compared to the gravity of the crime Marquez committed against his wife, suggesting a need for sentencing reform to ensure fair punishment across similar cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1224, the appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences. One judge dissented. The appellant, referred to as Donnie Joe Bacon, was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His jury trial was overseen by a judge, and the jury sentenced him to serve twenty-five years on one count of child abuse and forty-seven years on the other count. These sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. On appeal, the court looked at several arguments made by the appellant regarding his trial, including violations of his rights and errors made during the trial process. The court examined various points of error. One issue discussed was the testimony from a detective that did not follow a pretrial order, which the court said was a mistake but did not think it affected the guilt of the appellant; however, it did influence the length of the sentence. Another point was about the admission of evidence related to other crimes, which the appellant argued should not have been allowed in the trial. The court agreed that some of this evidence about other bad acts was not relevant and should not have been presented, yet again concluded it did not change the verdict of guilt but might have influenced the sentence. The court also looked into whether the prosecution failed to share important information with the defense and whether the appellant's lawyer did a good job representing him. They decided that the mistakes made by the defense lawyer mostly dealt with the other crimes evidence and didn't significantly impact the guilty verdict. In the end, the court affirmed the conviction of Donnie Joe Bacon but modified the punishment, reducing it to twenty years on each count, which would still be served consecutively. While most of the judges agreed with this decision, one judge wanted to reverse the conviction and order a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-442, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, First Degree Murder, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, but affirmed the convictions on all remaining counts. One judge dissented, feeling that one conspiracy count and the robbery count should be upheld, while reversing the other counts.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-1018, Orcutt appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second and Subsequent Offense. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Orcutt was found guilty in a jury trial of several charges linked to driving while drunk. This happened in Creek County after a trial that lasted a few days in August 2001. The jury decided that he should spend ten years in prison and pay a big fine for his most serious crime, as well as some smaller fines for the other charges. Orcutt claimed that there were mistakes made during his trial. He said that the jury was not given the right instructions about how they should decide on the punishment. He also argued that the prosecution acted unfairly and that the jury should have been kept together without being allowed to leave during the trial. After looking at all the evidence from the trial and listening to the arguments made by both sides, the court said that Orcutt's convictions would stand. However, they agreed that the sentence needed to be changed. The jury had been instructed incorrectly about the possible punishments for Orcutt's offenses. The law said that they could not set his punishment to include both treatment and prison time at the same time. While his prison time of ten years and the fine were kept in place, the part of the punishment that required treatment and use of an ignition device was removed. The court found that some of Orcutt's other arguments about unfairness during the trial did not hold up, and no changes were made based on those claims. In conclusion, the court affirmed the main conviction but modified part of the punishment, removing some of the conditions, while agreeing on the primary penalties.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-336, Joe Lynn Paddock appealed his conviction for several crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture drugs and possession of drugs with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one conviction due to lack of evidence but upheld the other convictions and modified some sentences. One judge dissented on the sentencing decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-315, Shawn William Jacks appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm after felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Shawn Jacks was found guilty by a jury for having a firearm, which is not allowed because he had a previous felony conviction. The jury decided that Jacks should spend five years in prison. He did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at the case again. Jacks raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that he did not know he was being tried for the specific crime he was accused of. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough. In addition, he said that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and should not have been allowed. Lastly, he felt that the punishment he received was too harsh. After looking carefully at everything, the court agreed with Jacks and found that he was not properly defended during his trial. They said that his lawyer’s strategy implied that Jacks was guilty, which is not what a lawyer should do. Because of this, the court decided that Jacks should get a new trial where he has a chance to defend himself properly. In conclusion, the court’s decision meant that Shawn Jacks could fight the charges against him again in court.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-257, Gregory Kyle Malone appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Burglary but affirmed the conviction for Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. One judge dissented. Malone was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison for burglary and forty years in prison for robbery. During the trial, he argued that there were mistakes made, including incorrect jury instructions and insufficient evidence for the burglary charge. Malone claimed the court made an error by allowing the jury to convict him based on instructions that included an offense he wasn’t charged with. The burglary charge required proof that he intended to commit robbery or assault when he broke into the house, but the jury was given broader instructions that didn't align with the specifics of his charge. This was seen as a violation of his rights, as he should have been able to defend against the exact crime he was accused of. The court agreed with Malone on this point, determining that the trial court had provided wrong instructions that could have influenced the jury's decision. As a result, they reversed the conviction for First Degree Burglary. However, they affirmed the conviction for Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon, finding that the evidence against him was strong enough for that charge. In conclusion, the court reversed the first charge of First Degree Burglary and kept the second charge of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon, which meant Malone would go back to court for the burglary charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1145, James Lee Wiggins appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence to eight years of imprisonment instead of ten. One judge dissented. Wiggins was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of ten years for concealing stolen property after having prior felony convictions. He raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that evidence of his past crimes unfairly influenced the jury and that improper comments during his trial led to an inflated sentence. Additionally, he stated that his case should be sent back to change the judgment so he could receive credit for the time he had already served. Lastly, he claimed that all these errors together made his trial unfair. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that some errors occurred, particularly regarding how the prosecution questioned Wiggins about his past prison time. However, they believed that these mistakes did not change the verdict of guilty. They also confirmed that he should receive credit for the time served due to a clerical error in his judgment. In the end, Wiggins' conviction was maintained, but the court reduced his sentence and directed the trial court to correct the judgment to ensure he received credit for the time he served.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1089, Micah Ananias Horn appealed his conviction for Committing Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Horn was found guilty and sentenced to eight years in prison. He argued that several things were wrong with his trial. First, he said he didn't get a fair trial because the jury saw video evidence about a lie detector test, which is not allowed in court. He also claimed his confession was not given freely and that the prosecutor unfairly tried to make the jury feel sorry for the victim. Horn believed there wasn't enough evidence to show he did something sexual, and he thought the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was unfair and confusing. After looking closely at all the information, the court agreed with Horn on two main points. The first was that the mention of the lie detector test could have influenced the jury’s decision and that it was serious enough to affect the outcome. The second point was that the way the prosecutor explained the burden of proof to the jury was incorrect and could confuse them about what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Since these mistakes were significant, the court ruled that Horn's conviction should be overturned, and he should have a new trial to make sure he gets a fair chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1511, Helen Rosson appealed her conviction for Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence to ten years' imprisonment. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentence should only be reduced to forty-five years, not ten. Rosson was convicted after a jury trial where she was sentenced to fifty years and a large fine. She raised several issues on appeal, including being punished twice for a single event, the unfair introduction of other crimes evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and the excessive nature of her sentence. The court found her convictions did not violate double jeopardy laws, noted that the evidence of other crimes should not have been included, but concluded that it did not unfairly influence the jury's decision on guilt. The sentence was modified due to the impact that the inadmissible evidence had on the jury’s sentencing decision.
In OCCA case No. M-2003-495, a person appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but noted that there was a mistake in calculating the court costs. The appellant claimed that the court costs were too high and asked to have them changed. The state agreed that an error was made in the amount of costs. The court ordered that the case be sent back to the District Court to fix the court costs. The appellant also argued that the prosecutor did things that were unfair during the trial, but the court found no reasons to change the verdict since there weren’t any objections during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and sentence were upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-44, Johnny L. Perry appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for possession of cocaine and modify the conviction for possession of a firearm to reflect a different charge and a lighter sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1009, Rodney Jerome Burton appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (cocaine base) and possession of a controlled dangerous substance within 1000 feet of a public park. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, but it dismissed the conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance within 1000 feet of a public park. One judge dissented. Burton was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of drugs near a public park. The jury recommended sentences of twenty years for trafficking and ten years for possession, which were to be served at the same time. Burton raised several reasons for his appeal, claiming that the evidence was not strong enough to support the verdicts, and that there were other problems in the trial. The court examined each of his claims, finding that there was enough evidence to support the trafficking conviction. They also decided that the jury was not pushed to come to a verdict and that the trial court followed the rules correctly regarding other pieces of evidence. It was determined that the remarks and actions of the prosecutor did not unfairly affect Burton's trial. The court concluded that there was no error regarding the prior photograph and that Burton's trial lawyer did a good job. Even though Burton wanted to benefit from a change in the law that might have helped him, the court said he was not entitled to that benefit because it didn’t apply to his case. Overall, the court upheld the sentence for trafficking but overturned the possession sentence, telling lower courts to dismiss that charge.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-690, Lonny Boyd Jones appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assaulting a police officer and aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count against him, affirm the others, and reduce his sentence for aggravated trafficking. One judge dissented. Lonny Boyd Jones was tried in Grady County District Court and found guilty of several charges. He received sentences of five years for assaulting a police officer, two years for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, one year with a fine for resisting an officer, and 35 years plus a fine for trafficking methamphetamine. After his conviction, Lonny appealed the decision, arguing many points, including issues with the arrest warrant, double jeopardy, hearsay evidence, and the effectiveness of his counsel. The court reviewed his claims. They found that the arrest warrant was valid despite not being signed properly. Therefore, Lonny's claim regarding the warrant did not hold. They also decided that his conviction for resisting a police officer was too similar to the assault charge, so that conviction was reversed. Regarding the hearsay evidence and jury instructions, the court found that they did not significantly affect the trial's outcome, and his request for instructions on lesser offenses or defenses was denied because the evidence supported his guilt for the charges he faced. Additionally, the court upheld the introduction of a letter he wrote, agreeing that it was authentic. They dismissed claims of prosecutorial misconduct as the comments made during the trial were fair and justified by the evidence. The court acknowledged that the sentencing instructions were mistaken and modified his sentence for trafficking methamphetamine, reducing it from 35 years to 30 years without a fine. In the end, the court's decision affirmed most of Lonny's convictions, changed one, and modified his sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-537, Andre Lasuan Marshall appealed his conviction for several offenses including shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the charges and affirm the others. One judge dissented. The case began when Marshall was charged with multiple counts, including three counts of shooting with intent to kill, one count of entering a building with unlawful intent, and one count of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. A jury found him guilty on most counts after the trial. He received sentences that the jury recommended, which were to be served at the same time, except for one count. Marshall raised several points for appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he shot someone with the intent to kill. He also said that the jury should not have been instructed on a lesser charge, that his convictions for possessing a firearm and shooting someone should not count separately, and that some police testimony about gang colors was unfair to him. Marshall believed that the evidence didn’t support one of the building charges and that the jury wasn't given all the necessary instructions. He mentioned that there were problems with what the prosecutor said during the trial and that all of these issues together should lead to his convictions being reversed or his sentences being changed. After reviewing everything, the court agreed some points raised were valid. They decided that Marshall did run from the scene after the shooting and that the evidence showed he was likely the shooter. They did find, however, that it was a mistake to instruct the jury about the lesser charge without a request from the state. Therefore, they reversed that particular conviction related to the shooting but upheld the others. The court concluded that while they were reversing one conviction, the remaining charges were upheld, and Marshall would continue serving his other sentences. One judge disagreed with how the reversal was handled, believing that if a new trial was warranted, it shouldn’t just overturn the charge outright but should instead allow for reconsideration by a jury. So, that’s a summary of the case and what the court decided.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1116, Billy Ray Rodgers appealed his conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Billy Ray Rodgers was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine in Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison and a fine of fifty thousand dollars. After the trial, he appealed the decision, raising several reasons why he believed the conviction should be overturned. First, he argued that the evidence did not show he actively participated in making methamphetamine. The law states that for someone to be convicted of a crime, there must be proof that they either committed the crime themselves or helped someone else do it. In this case, the court agreed with Rodgers. They said that simply being present at the scene of the crime was not enough to prove that he was guilty of manufacturing meth. Rodgers' lawyer had argued that the trial judge did not give the jury proper instructions. He also claimed there were mistakes made by the prosecutor and that his own lawyer did not do a good job, which all contributed to an unfair trial. Lastly, he said that the evidence collected against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court decided that there was not enough proof to support the conviction. They found that being present at the meth lab did not equal participating in its operation. Therefore, they reversed his conviction and ordered that the case be dismissed entirely. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction. They argued that Rodgers was present where meth was being manufactured, and there were items connecting him to the lab. This judge felt that a reasonable juror could find him guilty based on the evidence, which included his fingerprints on lab equipment and his social security card found there. In summary, the court overruled the conviction because they believed the evidence did not sufficiently prove Rodgers was involved in the crime, while one judge disagreed and thought the evidence was enough for a conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-548, Brian Wheatley Fire appealed his conviction for seven counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand his case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Brian Wheatley Fire was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County of multiple counts of a serious crime. The jury recommended he serve twenty years in prison for each count, and the judge ordered the sentences to be served one after the other, meaning he would spend many years in prison. After getting convicted, Brian Wheatley Fire raised several issues, called propositions of error, which he believed showed he did not get a fair trial. These were a set of complaints about how the trial went and how evidence was presented. The court looked at the arguments made by Brian's side. One important issue was that a social worker and a school counselor said they believed the child involved was telling the truth, which was a problem. These statements could influence how the jury viewed the witness's honesty. The law says that it is up to the jury to decide if someone is telling the truth, and when someone who is not a trial expert vouches for a witness's truthfulness, it can lead to unfairness in the trial. Another issue was related to what happened during questioning. The prosecutor brought up that Brian, after being arrested, didn't speak to police. This should not have happened because it could make people think less of him for not speaking up right away. The law protects people from being judged negatively for choosing to stay silent after being arrested. Brian's silence was used against him repeatedly in questions by the prosecutor and was mentioned again in final remarks. The court found that these two problems together made it impossible for Brian to have a fair trial. They believed that the errors were serious enough to reverse the guilty decision and send the case back for a new trial where these mistakes wouldn't happen again. In conclusion, Brian Wheatley Fire's conviction was overturned, and his case was sent back for a new trial because the errors during his first trial compromised his right to a fair trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-869, Bennie Jay Edwards, Jr., appealed his conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and Breaking and Entering. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for Concealing Stolen Property to ten years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Bennie Jay Edwards, Jr. was found guilty in a trial that took place in May 2002. The jury decided he should go to prison for 30 years for the first crime, which was concealing stolen property, and one year for the second crime, which was breaking and entering. These sentences were set to happen at the same time, meaning he would serve the longest one. After the trial, Edwards appealed, saying that there were mistakes during the trial and that he did not get a fair chance to defend himself. His lawyers said the jury was told the wrong information about how long he could be sentenced for his crime of concealing stolen property. The proper punishment should have been four years to life in prison, but the jury was told it could be no less than 20 years. After looking into the issues raised by Edwards, the court decided that he did not lose his chance for a fair trial because of the mistakes that were made about the instructions. However, they agreed that the jury was given the wrong information about the punishment for his first conviction. Because of this error, the court changed the sentence for his first conviction from 30 years to 10 years. The second conviction remained the same. The court explained that even though there were some mistakes, they did not think those mistakes were serious enough to change the conviction itself, just the sentence. In the end, the court found Edwards guilty but reduced his punishment for one of the crimes due to the trial mistakes related to jury instructions.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-808, Milton Veran Williams appealed his conviction for distribution and possession of crack cocaine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his convictions for possession with intent to distribute and maintaining a place for selling drugs were reversed and dismissed, but his conviction for distribution was affirmed with a reduced fine. One judge dissented, believing the entry into Williams' home was justified under exigent circumstances.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-648, Remigio Rivas appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences from 100 years to 75 years for each count. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-532, James Jermaine Woodfork appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse, and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold some of his convictions while reversing others and sending them back to the District Court for dismissal. One member of the court dissented. Woodfork had been found guilty of various charges after a jury trial. He received significant sentences for his convictions, including 25 years for Kidnapping and 30 years for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. However, he raised concerns about double jeopardy, arguing that his multiple convictions for similar offenses involving different victims should not have occurred. The court agreed with him on some counts and reversed those convictions. Additionally, the court examined claims of trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct. Even though the prosecutor made some inappropriate comments during the trial, the court concluded that these did not significantly affect the overall fairness of the trial or the jury's decision, so they did not lead to a reversal of the sentence. In summary, some of Woodfork's convictions were upheld, while others were reversed, and he was given a chance for those to be dismissed. This case highlights important legal principles about multiple charges and the rights of defendants in a criminal trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-493, Donnell E. Williams appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Williams was found guilty by a jury of breaking into a place that was not his and hiding things that were stolen. The jury recommended a punishment of twenty-five years in prison for each count, with the need to serve all the punishment one after the other. Williams argued several points in his appeal. First, he said that the court did not tell the jury they could consider that he might have had permission to enter the property. Second, he thought the jury should have been told about a lesser crime than burglary. Third, he claimed that the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. Fourth, he felt that his twenty-five-year sentences were too long. Finally, he believed that all the mistakes made during the trial, when added together, meant he did not have a fair chance in court. After looking at everything in the case, the court found that Williams's points for appeal did not require them to change the jury's decision on his guilt. They agreed that the jury did not need information on asking if he had consent or the lesser charge since there was no strong evidence to support his claims. They also concluded that the prosecutor's actions did not prevent Williams from getting a fair trial because there was strong evidence against him. However, the court felt that making Williams serve his sentences one after the other was too severe, especially because he was living in a vacant house and facing challenges like being homeless and struggling with substance use. They decided that twenty-five years was enough time for him to pay for what he did and get the help he might need. In short, the court kept his convictions but changed his sentence so that he would serve his time together rather than separately. This way, he would have a better chance to start again after serving his time. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentences to run together, believing the original decision by the trial court was correct given Williams's history of prior convictions.