Remand Archives - Page 3 of 5

C-2012-52

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 21, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-52, #Green appealed his conviction for #Child Neglect, Child Abuse, and Possession of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on Green's motion to withdraw his plea. #No one dissented. Terry Lamar Green was in trouble for neglecting and abusing a child, and for having marijuana. After he admitted to these crimes, he was given a very long prison sentence. He was supposed to spend life in prison for the neglect and abuse charges, and he also got some additional time for the marijuana possession. Green felt upset and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He asked to take back his guilty plea, which is called a motion to withdraw his plea, but his lawyer wanted to quit the case because they had some disagreement about what was going on. However, the judge said the lawyer couldn’t leave. Green believed this was unfair since he really needed a lawyer who didn't have a conflict of interest to help him with the hearing about changing his plea. The court looked into Green’s arguments carefully. It noted that the lawyer had a real problem because she was worried about possibly being a witness in the case. This could affect how she represented Green, and the judge didn't seem to understand that her interests were different from Green's at that moment. This meant that Green did not get the help he truly needed when he most needed it. Because of these issues, the court decided that Green was entitled to have a different lawyer represent him at the hearing about withdrawing his plea. They needed to make sure he had someone who could defend him without any problems. The court then decided that they needed to send the case back so that Green could have a new hearing with a lawyer who didn’t have a conflict. They also noticed that there was a missing document related to his marijuana charge, so they ordered that to be fixed too. Overall, the court recognized that Green had rights that were not properly protected, so they made the decision to help him have another chance to argue his case.

C-2011-875

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-875, #Edgar Lee Ussery appealed his conviction for #possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. In an #unpublished decision, the court decided #to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. #No one dissented. In this case, Edgar Lee Ussery entered a guilty plea to two counts of possession with intent to distribute drugs. He did this after a previous felony conviction. By working with the Drug Court program, he hoped to avoid a long prison sentence. However, if he did not complete the program, he faced up to twenty years in prison for each count. Later, the state asked to terminate Ussery's participation in the Drug Court because of new felony charges he faced. The judge agreed, and Ussery was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, served at the same time. Ussery wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he asked the court to let him withdraw it. He argued that the court wrongly kicked him out of Drug Court. He also claimed that he didn’t fully understand what he was pleading to at the time. The court looked at these claims. They found that Ussery knew what he was agreeing to when he made his plea. They also decided that the judge wasn't wrong to remove him from Drug Court based on his new felony charges. However, Ussery pointed out some mistakes in the process. He argued that the judgment didn’t show he got credit for the time he had already served and incorrectly said he had two previous felony convictions instead of one. The court agreed that his sentence needed some correction to reflect he would get credit for time served and recognized that only one felony conviction was used for his case. They sent the case back to fix these issues but left the other parts of Ussery’s sentence the same. In conclusion, the court denied his request to withdraw his plea, but they did agree to fix some details about how his conviction was recorded.

C-2011-1119

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 5, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-1119, Hollis Michael Anson appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Hollis Michael Anson was charged in Osage County District Court with making a controlled dangerous substance. He pleaded guilty, which means he admitted to the crime. After that, he was given a long sentence of twenty-five years in prison. Later, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. However, the court did not agree with his request after a hearing. In his appeal, Anson claimed there were mistakes made that affected his trial and his plea. He argued that his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which meant that his lawyer could not effectively help him. This was because the same lawyer had worked on his plea and sentencing, which made it hard for the lawyer to clearly represent Anson during the hearing to withdraw his plea. Anson believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he understood what he was pleading guilty to. He also thought that the sentence he received was too harsh. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed that there was a significant problem with Anson's representation during the motion to withdraw his plea. They found that his lawyer did not provide the help he needed because he couldn't argue properly without pointing out his own mistakes. So, the court said they would send the case back to the lower district court. There, Anson would have the chance to have a different lawyer represent him—one without any conflicts—to properly address his concerns about withdrawing his guilty plea. This was an important decision because it meant Anson would have another chance to argue his case.

F-2011-460

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 13, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-460, Tate appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Running a Roadblock. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Tate was found guilty of trying to get away from the police and running through roadblocks. He also faced charges for assaulting a police officer. The jury recommended sentences which included prison time and fines. Tate argued that he should not be punished for multiple offenses when they stemmed from the same action of fleeing from police, claiming this violated laws against double punishment. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that, while some of Tate's claims were valid, such as his objections to being convicted for both Obstructing and Resisting an Officer, other aspects did not warrant reversal. The judges agreed that being punished separately for Attempting to Elude and for Assaulting an Officer was acceptable because they involved different actions. Overall, the court upheld the conviction on some counts, but reversed others due to overlapping aspects of Tate’s actions. The discussion highlighted the importance of careful laws around double jeopardy to ensure fair punishment.

C-2011-546

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 17, 2012
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-546, Myron Emanuel Louie appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. Myron Louie was originally charged with a more serious crime, but he later pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. However, after pleading guilty, he wanted to change his mind and withdraw his plea. The court sentenced him to ten years in prison, even after he expressed his desire to withdraw the plea. Louie then filed a motion to officially withdraw his guilty plea, but the court denied his request during a hearing. During the appeal, Louie claimed that his lawyer had a conflict of interest that affected how well he was represented. He argued that this made it hard for him to get fair legal help, especially during the hearing to withdraw his plea. The judges explained that a lawyer must represent their client fully and not have any conflicts that could hurt the client’s case. The court agreed that the original lawyer did not handle the motion to withdraw effectively and that this lack of proper representation meant Louie's appeal needed to be looked at again with a new lawyer who doesn't have a conflict of interest. They ordered the case to go back to the original court to appoint a new attorney. The judges also stated that if the new attorney managed to get the guilty plea withdrawn, this would be considered a successful outcome in this appeal. But if the motion to withdraw was denied again, all the decisions and details of that hearing would need to be sent back to the appellate court for review. In conclusion, the case was sent back to be re-evaluated with a new lawyer, making it a measurement of fairness and justice for Louie.

C-2010-940

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 6, 2011
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-940, Gregory Davis Wabaunsee appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including two counts of Second Degree Burglary and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one of the firearm charges due to a double punishment issue, but they upheld the other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented.

M 2010-1026

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 1, 2011
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2010-1026, Luck appealed his conviction for Malicious Mischief. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order, remanding the matter for a hearing to determine the correct amount of restitution. No dissent was registered.

J 2011-0475

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 25, 2011
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2011-0475, the appellant appealed his conviction for rape and lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court denying the appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and remanded the case to be dismissed. One judge dissented.

C-2010-1139

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 23, 2011
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.

RE-2010-403

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2011
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.

C-2010-1033

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 21, 2011
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-1033, Shawn Leroy Harger appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Harger's petition for a writ of certiorari. The judgment and sentence of the district court were reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new hearing on Harger's application to withdraw his plea with separate, conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented.

C-2009-1192

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 19, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-1192, Valentine Palos-Tellos appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Attempted Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented.

C-2009-900

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-900, Hooks appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his request for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Leon Lee Hooks was sentenced to thirty years in prison, but he could have ten years suspended. He decided to plead guilty, but later felt that he did not have the help he needed from his lawyer during the plea process. He filed a motion to change his plea and wanted to show that he was not given a fair defense. The main question was whether Hooks received good help from his attorney when asking to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that there was a conflict because Hooks' complaints were about the quality of help from his lawyer. The lawyer could not fully defend Hooks and also prove that he did a bad job at the same time. Because of this, the court believed Hooks had a right to a new hearing where he could have a different lawyer who could help him without any conflicts. This was important to ensure he received a fair chance to prove his side of the story. In conclusion, the court decided to allow Hooks to have another chance to explain why he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea with the assistance of a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest.

RE 2009-0510

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 14, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0510, Edward Q. Jones appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation. One judge dissented. Edward Jones had previously pled guilty to domestic abuse and was sentenced to a few years in jail, with most of that time suspended, meaning he wouldn’t serve it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he had problems following those rules, which led the State to ask the court to revoke his suspended sentence. There were two main hearings regarding this. In the first hearing, the judge found that Edward had broken the probation rules and took away three and a half years of his suspended time. Edward didn't appeal that decision. Later, the State filed another request to revoke his sentence, saying he had not followed the rules again. In the second hearing, the judge decided to take away all of his suspended time. Edward argued that he should have had a lawyer to help him at the hearing, which he really wanted. He felt that the short time between being told he could have a lawyer and the date of his hearing was not enough time for him to get one. He argued that he was unfairly treated without a lawyer and that he shouldn’t have to suffer because he missed a deadline due to a lack of money for the application fee to get a lawyer. The State countered by saying that since Edward didn't file for a court-appointed lawyer by the deadline set by the judge, he gave up his right to have one. They also argued that the right to have a lawyer at a revocation hearing is not a constitutional right but a statutory right. They said he didn't get the lawyer because he wasn't trying hard enough to get one and was just delaying things. The judges looked at earlier cases where people were found to have given up their right to a lawyer because they didn't act quickly enough to get one. They concluded that while there was a short delay for Edward, the reasons didn't clearly show he was deliberately trying to delay his hearing. They pointed out that Edward might not have known what he was doing in waiving his right to counsel, and the judge didn't look into whether he could have afforded a lawyer or not. After reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the court decided that Edward was not fairly represented when he attended his hearing without a lawyer. They noted that there was conflicting testimony from police officers about the events leading to his probation violations, which made it difficult for them to feel confident about the decision made at the hearing. Because of these issues, the court reversed the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent it back to the district court to hold a new hearing where Edward could have a lawyer or show he knew he was giving up that right clearly. In doing so, they ordered that any confusion or problems found in the previous record should be clarified.

RE-2010-0510

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 7, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-0510, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant, who had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, was sentenced to five years, with certain conditions. His sentence was largely suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve most of it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he faced trouble when the state accused him of violating those rules. There were two applications made by the state to revoke his suspended sentence. The first happened in 2007, where a judge found he broke the terms of his probation and took away three and a half years of his suspended sentence. He did not appeal this decision. The second application was filed in 2009, which led to a hearing in May of that year. During this hearing, the judge determined that the appellant had again violated the rules, resulting in a decision to revoke his entire suspended sentence. The appellant claimed he did not have a lawyer during the revocation hearing. He argued that he was not given enough time to find one and that this hurt his case. The state responded that the appellant missed the deadline to apply for a court-appointed lawyer and therefore gave up his right to have legal help. They believed he was trying to delay the hearing. The law states that individuals at revocation hearings should have the right to have a lawyer, but the court can proceed if a person knowingly waives that right. In earlier similar cases, if judges found an individual was just trying to delay things, they ruled that the person voluntarily gave up their right to have a lawyer. In this case, the court found that the appellant's delay of only six days did not show he was deliberately trying to postpone the proceedings. They also noted the lack of a proper review regarding whether he was unable to afford a lawyer. As a result, the appeal had merit, and his claim for lack of counsel was upheld. Since the court noted conflicts in the testimony presented during the hearing, they decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. They ordered that a new hearing take place, ensuring that the appellant has the chance to be represented by a lawyer or that his waiver of that right is properly recorded. In summary, the court ruled that the process leading to the revocation had issues that warranted a new hearing, ensuring fairness and proper legal representation for the appellant.

F-2009-47

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 25, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-47, Kenneth Simmons appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. Mark Kenneth Simmons was found guilty of Manslaughter after his trial for Murder in the First Degree. The jury gave him a fifteen-year prison sentence. He appealed, saying the trial court made an error by not informing the jury that he had to serve at least 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The law in Oklahoma states that people convicted of specific crimes, like First Degree Murder or Manslaughter in the First Degree, must serve at least 85% of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. In a previous case, the court decided that jurors should know about these rules when they are deciding on a sentence. During the trial, when the jury asked if they needed to consider the 85% rule, the court told them to continue deliberating without giving any additional information. This was seen as a mistake. The State argued that this mistake did not affect the outcome significantly, but the court disagreed and said it was clear this lack of instruction was a big error. Because of this error, the court couldn’t be confident that the jury fully understood the implications of the sentence they handed down. The court decided that a new sentence should be determined, either by a properly instructed jury or by the District Court if the jury was waived by Simmons. The court affirmed the judgment but vacated the sentence, meaning they believed he should be tried again for sentencing.

F-2008-824

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 22, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-824, Allen James Taylor appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including conspiracy and burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court but ordered that his sentences should be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had agreed to plead guilty and was initially sentenced with his sentences suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison right away but had to follow conditions of probation. Later, the appellant breached the terms of his probation, leading to the state applying to revoke his suspended sentences. He then participated in a Drug Court program, which was intended to help him with substance abuse issues. However, after a while, he was terminated from this program due to more violations. When he was removed from Drug Court, the court ended up ordering him to serve his sentences one after the other instead of at the same time, which was against what was originally agreed upon. The court felt that this was not right and decided that the sentences should indeed run at the same time, completing the original terms set forth at the beginning. The appellant argued that he was not correctly represented by his lawyer when he entered Drug Court and that his original guilty plea should not be valid. However, the court noted these concerns were not the focus of this specific appeal regarding the Drug Court termination. In the end, the court confirmed the appellant’s Drug Court termination but corrected how his sentences were to be served, stating they should be concurrent rather than consecutive. This concluded the key aspects of the case.

F-2008-1087

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 27, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1087, Mitchell Dewayne Baker appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the order for restitution, remanding the case to the district court for a proper determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. Baker was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to ten years in prison for each offense, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively. The trial court also required him to pay restitution. Baker raised several issues in his appeal, claiming that the court had made errors during the trial process. One major issue was about the restitution ordered by the trial court, which Baker argued lacked factual support. The court acknowledged that the trial judge has discretion in deciding restitution, but determined that the record did not provide enough information to support the amount that was initially ordered. Therefore, while the conviction stood, the restitution order was removed, and the case was sent back to determine the correct restitution amount. Baker also challenged the prosecution’s use of evidence from his past crimes, saying it was unfairly used to paint him as a bad person. The court ruled that this evidence was allowed to help show that Baker’s explanation of how the victim got hurt was not credible. This was because his past behavior was relevant to his defense. Another point raised by Baker dealt with how the prosecutor questioned witnesses about their feelings during and after the incidents. The court said this questioning was relevant to establish the elements needed to prove the charges against Baker. They found no error in how this evidence was presented as it was crucial to the prosecution's case. Lastly, Baker pointed to some statements made by the prosecutor regarding the burden of proof. The court found that any mistakes were not serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, as the jury was correctly informed about the burden of proof at several points. Overall, while the court upheld Baker's convictions, they took issue with the restitution ordered and directed that it be reassessed to ensure a fair determination.

F 2009-70

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 3, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2009-70, Phillip Ray Herndon appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and the sentence of twenty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Phillip Ray Herndon was found guilty in the Ottawa County District Court. The jury decided on a sentence of twenty years for his crime, which was based on his history of previous felonies. After his conviction, he claimed that the trial had some issues. Herndon pointed out a few problems he believed affected his trial. First, he argued that the judge should have allowed the jury to consider a lesser crime: simple Assault and Battery instead of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. He thought this was unfair and took away his rights to a fair trial. Second, he argued that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to prove he had used a dangerous weapon. He said there was no clear proof that the object he used was actually a dangerous weapon or that it could hurt someone badly. Lastly, he mentioned that the official court documents didn’t show an order that his new sentence would run at the same time as a sentence from another case. He wanted this to be fixed, calling for a correction to the official records. The court reviewed all the facts and evidence presented in the trial and decided that the judge did not make a mistake when refusing the request for the lesser offense. They agreed that there was enough evidence for the jury to convict Herndon of the more serious charge. They also acknowledged that the judge had ordered his sentence to run concurrently with another but agreed that the paperwork needed to be corrected. In the end, the court upheld the sentence of twenty years but sent the case back to fix the clerical error about the sentence running concurrently with Herndon’s other case.

RE-2008-880

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 29, 2009
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2008-880, William John Myers appealed his conviction for two counts of Second Degree Arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order in one of the cases but affirmed the revocation in the other case. One judge dissented. Myers had earlier pleaded guilty to two arson offenses and received a suspended sentence of 20 years, with the first 7 years of that sentence active, meaning he had to serve that time in prison unless he followed probation rules. Later, in 2008, the court found that he had broken the rules of his probation, leading to the judge revoking the suspended part of his sentence. Myers argued that one of his revocations should not have happened because the State did not file a required petition to seek that revocation. The court agreed with him, stating that without the petition, they did not have the authority to revoke his sentence for that case. However, for the other case, where Myers had also violated probation, the court held that the decision to fully revoke the suspended sentence was within the trial court's discretion, and they found no mistake in that ruling. Therefore, the court decided to reverse the order about the first case but keep the revocation in place for the second case. This means that Myers still has to serve part of his sentence for the second case while the order regarding the first case was sent back to the lower court to clarify that he still has his suspended sentence in that case.

C-2009-69

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-69, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, Resisting an Officer, and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. One judge dissented.

F-2008-538

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 17, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-538, Jerry Johnson appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Johnson did not competently, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial, which means that he deserves a new trial. However, the evidence presented in his bench trial was sufficient to support his conviction, so they remanded the case for a new trial. One judge dissented.

RE-2007-1233

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 22, 2009
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-1233, Jeffrey Allen Holden appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape and one count of First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's ruling and dismiss the State's application to revoke Holden's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holden had originally entered a guilty plea and was given a long sentence with part of it suspended. However, he was accused of violating probation by contacting the victim while in prison. The rules say that a hearing to revoke a suspended sentence needs to happen within twenty days after the guilty plea. When the second hearing wasn't conducted on time, Holden argued that the court didn't have the power to proceed. The court ultimately agreed with Holden, ruling that the process was not followed correctly, and because of this, they did not have the authority to go forward with the revocation. Therefore, the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the application.

C-2008-273

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 10, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-273, Charles Bert Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Jones the ability to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Jones entered a guilty plea for serious charges in the Oklahoma County court. The judge gave him life sentences for some counts and a ten-year sentence for another, but his requests to change this were denied. The main issue was whether he made his guilty plea knowingly, which means he understood what he was doing. The court found that there was enough evidence to say that Jones was misled by his attorney, who suggested he would get a better sentence than what the judge actually imposed. Because of this situation, the court ruled that Jones should be allowed to undo his plea and have a new trial. They ordered his case to be handled by a different judge to avoid any unfairness. The dissenting judge felt there was no strong evidence to grant Jones's request and believed the original decision should stand.

F-2007-381

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 5, 2008
Post category:F

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.