Restitution

C-2005-311

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-311, Emily Burns appealed her conviction for robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Emily Burns pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. A judge sentenced her to 25 years in prison for robbery and five years for the other charge, with both sentences running at the same time. Burns later asked to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing her long sentence was unfair. The court looked at how the sentence was decided. They said when someone pleads guilty, the judge must consider all possible punishments. Burns claimed the judge had a policy of giving at least 25 years for armed robbery without looking at her specific case. This concerned the appellate court because it seemed the judge might not have thought about all the facts before sentencing. Burns used a fake gun during the robbery, and no one was really hurt. The court believed that sentencing her to 25 years for using a fake gun in a non-violent way was extreme given her background as a young mother with no prior criminal record. The appellate court decided to change Burns's punishment, reducing her sentence to 10 years in prison because the original sentence was too harsh. They affirmed her convictions but modified the length of her sentence. Burns also argued that she was denied a chance to have her sentence reviewed after a year, which is a right she has by law. However, the court said she was not denied this right because the judge just needed her to file a motion if she wanted a review. In the end, the court granted her request to modify her sentence and reaffirmed her convictions, while one judge believed that the original sentence should stand.

Continue ReadingC-2005-311

RE 2005-0473

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0473, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences because the hearing was not held within the required twenty days. The appellant had a dissenting opinion.

Continue ReadingRE 2005-0473

F-2003-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1261, Ronnie Odell Gargus appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation, five counts of Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gargus' convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved a jury trial where Gargus was found guilty of serious sexual offenses against a child. The jury decided on lengthy prison sentences for each count, totaling a significant amount of time in prison. Gargus raised two main points in his appeal. First, he argued that he should have been allowed to ask the State's expert witness about any bias in his testimony against Gargus. The court acknowledged that usually, a witness cannot be questioned about their past arrests if there was no conviction. However, the court agreed that there are times when it is important to explore a witness’s potential bias, especially if the witness has pending criminal issues. Despite this, the court found that excluding the questioning about the expert's bias did not change the outcome of the case since there was also strong evidence against Gargus, including the child’s own credible testimony. Second, Gargus claimed he was not properly informed before the court ordered him to pay restitution to the victim. The court noted that Gargus did not raise this issue during the trial. However, they agreed that the amount of restitution was not clearly supported by evidence, and that needed to be corrected. The court ordered a new hearing to determine the correct amount that Gargus should pay. Overall, the court upheld the convictions and long sentences but recognized that some legal issues concerning restitution needed further attention. They will have a new hearing to ensure the restitution amount is fair and based on proper evidence.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1261

C-2003-1247

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-1247, Robert Hershal Perkis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reverse the kidnapping conviction, and modify the burglary conviction to second-degree burglary. One judge dissented on the kidnapping aspect. Robert Hershal Perkis was charged with three serious crimes: robbery using a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and first-degree burglary. He pleaded nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison for these crimes, with the sentences running one after the other, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution. Later, Perkis filed an application to withdraw his guilty pleas, stating that his pleas were not supported by enough evidence, that the sentences were too harsh, and that he did not receive good help from his lawyer. The court looked into these claims and first examined if the pleas were based on sufficient evidence. For the robbery charge, the court found that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon and had property taken from him, which satisfied the elements of robbery. Thus, the court upheld Perkis' conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In looking at the kidnapping charge, the court considered the facts surrounding the incident. The victim was taken to a field and held there by Perkis and others. The central issue was whether the confinement of the victim could be considered “secret.” The court decided that because the victim was in a public area, it did not meet the legal definition of secret confinement, which led to the reversal of the kidnapping conviction. Regarding the burglary charge, the court found that while there were issues concerning the evidence for first-degree burglary, it chose to modify the conviction to second-degree burglary instead, giving Perkis a shorter sentence for that conviction. Overall, the court's opinion granted some relief to Perkis by reversing one conviction and modifying another, but kept the robbery conviction intact. The dissenting judge felt that the kidnapping conviction should stand, arguing that the facts should be considered as a case of secret confinement.

Continue ReadingC-2003-1247

RE-2003-933

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-933, the appellant appealed his conviction for abandonment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant was found guilty of abandoning his child by not paying court-ordered child support. He owed nearly $10,000 in unpaid support for his ten-year-old daughter. After initially being sentenced to five years in prison, his sentence was later changed to a suspended sentence of about four years and eight months. This meant he would not go to prison immediately and could work on paying the support he owed. The appellant was required to get a job, do community service, and make monthly payments towards his child support. However, he fell behind on these payments, and the court eventually issued a warrant for his arrest because of this failure to pay. Over the next couple of years, the court continued to postpone his sentencing. The appellant managed to pay some of his arrears, but he still owed money. By 2003, the court revoked his suspended sentence, saying he had not met the payment requirements. After reviewing the case, the appellate court found that the appellant's suspended sentence actually ended before the revocation took place. The court explained that even though he had missed a payment, the revocation occurred after his sentence had technically expired, which was different from the usual rules. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the revocation and said the case must be dismissed.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-933

RE-2003-660

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2003-660, Fox appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the revocation order should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Fox was found guilty of Concealing Stolen Property and received a suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't serve jail time right away but had to follow certain rules. He had to pay money as part of his sentence and stay employed. Over time, Fox struggled to meet these requirements due to health issues and other challenges, and the State said he violated the rules of his probation. Upon review, the Court looked at whether Fox’s actions were willful. This means they examined if he meant to break the rules or if there were reasons he couldn’t comply. Fox's attorney had agreed with the State's claims but there was confusion about whether Fox could argue that he had a good reason for not following the rules. In the end, the Court found that Fox had the right to argue that he did not willfully break the rules of probation. The previous order revoking his sentence was reversed, and more discussions were needed to figure out his situation properly.

Continue ReadingRE-2003-660

RE 2003-0857

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0857, #Montgomery appealed his conviction for #Burglary, Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence, but modified the length of the revocation to three years. #One judge dissented. Montgomery had initially pled guilty to burglary and was given a chance to stay out of prison under certain rules for four years. However, he broke the rules multiple times. The state asked the court to impose his sentence because he did not keep a job, did not pay the money he owed, and committed new crimes like driving without a license. The judge revoked a large portion of his sentence for these reasons. On appeal, Montgomery argued that the judge had no right to take away three and a half years of his sentence and that the punishment was too harsh. The court found that while the judge made a mistake in calculating the time, the decision to revoke the sentence was not seen as overly harsh, so they changed the revocation from three and a half years to three years instead.

Continue ReadingRE 2003-0857

RE-2002-174

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2002-174, the appellant appealed her conviction for various crimes related to embezzlement and forgery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, which was suspended, meaning she would not go to prison immediately if she followed certain conditions. These conditions included paying back over $35,000 to the victim of her crimes as restitution, reporting to a probation officer, and not changing her residence without permission. In 1997, the state said the appellant broke the rules of her probation by failing to report to her probation officer, changing her residence without permission, and not paying her restitution as required. A judge found that she did violate her probation, but there were multiple delays in resolving her punishment, which lasted about four and a half years. In 2001, the appellant missed a court hearing, and the court issued a warrant for her arrest. After her arrest in January 2002, a final hearing took place where the judge ordered her to serve the full five years of her sentences and added extra fees for sheriff's costs. The appellant then appealed this decision, proposing several arguments against the court's order: 1. She argued that the sheriff's fees were imposed unlawfully and violated her rights. 2. She claimed the restitution amount was uncertain and should not be required. 3. She believed the court could not revoke her suspended sentence after such a long time. 4. She felt her due process rights were violated because the imposed punishment was excessive. After reviewing the case, the court agreed with some of the appellant's points. It decided that the sheriff's fees were not legally appropriate because they cannot be added after a sentence has been given. They also found that appellant’s arguments about the restitution were too late because those challenges should have been made back in 1995 when the restitution was set. However, the court did agree with the appellant that it was too long between when she was sentenced and when her probation was revoked; thus, they ordered that her two five-year sentences should run at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other (consecutively). In conclusion, the court modified the earlier order by removing the sheriff's fees and adjusted how long the appellant would be imprisoned.

Continue ReadingRE-2002-174

RE-2001-1375

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.

Continue ReadingRE-2001-1375

F-2001-106

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-106, Billy Mack Downey appealed his conviction for Murder in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, sending the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. Billy Mack Downey was convicted of murder by a jury in Carter County. He was sentenced to forty years in prison. Downey appealed his conviction, raising thirteen different complaints about how the trial was conducted and claims that he did not receive a fair trial. Here are the main issues Downey raised in his appeal: 1. He argued that it was wrong for the trial court to allow victim impact evidence during the trial, which should only be presented during the sentencing phase. 2. He claimed that the prosecution unfairly increased the credibility of its main witnesses. 3. Downey believed his father should have been allowed to testify, and that the prosecutor took advantage of this situation during closing arguments. 4. He also said the prosecutor acted improperly in a way that affected his chance for a fair trial. 5. Downey filed a motion for a new trial, which he claimed the trial court incorrectly denied. 6. He pointed out errors in how the State impeached one of his defense witnesses. 7. Downey thought the trial judge wrongly instructed the jury on matters related to the law and the testimonies of his co-defendants. 8. He believed certain comments from the judge during the trial may have influenced the jury’s opinion about his guilt. 9. Downey felt he should have been told that his co-defendants were accomplices, which could have affected how the jury viewed their testimonies. 10. He claimed the judge gave an instruction during closing arguments that confused the jury. 11. Downey argued that the collection of errors during the trial ultimately deprived him of a fair verdict. 12. He mentioned the judge wrongly ordered him to pay restitution without sufficient evidence of loss. After reviewing the evidence and considering all of Downey's claims, the court found that he had been deprived of a fair trial due to multiple serious errors. Particularly, it highlighted the combined effect of several of the errors as being significantly damaging to Downey's case. The court specifically identified that the trial court should not have allowed victim impact evidence during the guilt phase of the trial and agreed that Downey was wrongly denied the opportunity to have his father testify. The court believed these issues could have changed the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court overturned the original decision and ordered that a new trial be held for Downey, where he would have the chance to address these issues. This ruling aimed to ensure that he could receive a fair trial as guaranteed to him under the law.

Continue ReadingF-2001-106

C-2001-1216

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-1216, Jessica Melissa Woods appealed her conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's denial of her application to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Jessica entered a blind plea of guilty, which means she admitted her guilt without a deal or agreement. The trial judge sentenced her to twenty years in prison but suspended ten years of that sentence, which allowed her to not serve that time unless she got in trouble again. Jessica later wanted to take back her guilty plea because she felt her mental condition affected her decision. She asked the court to let her do this, but the court said no. They looked at her case and decided that she had entered the plea knowingly and willingly, meaning she understood what she was doing when she agreed to plead guilty. Jessica also wanted help with paying certain fees, including for restitution (money paid to victims), a Victim's Compensation Assessment, and a fee for preparing transcripts (written records of court proceedings). The court found that she did not have enough evidence to change the orders about the payments for restitution and the Victim's Compensation Assessment, so that part was not changed. However, they agreed to modify the fee for the transcript since the court had said she was too poor to pay for it herself. In the end, the court decided that Jessica would still have to deal with the twenty years of sentencing, but it would change the transcript preparation fee to a lower amount. They confirmed the earlier court's decision and denied her request to change her plea.

Continue ReadingC-2001-1216

F-2001-687

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2001-687

RE-2001-887

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.

Continue ReadingRE-2001-887

F-2001-211

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-211, Sherl D. Batise appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence, meaning Batise will continue to serve his time in prison. One judge dissented. Batise was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. He argued in his appeal that he did not have good legal help during his trial, that his punishment was too harsh, and that the court did not properly decide how much money he should pay in restitution to the victim. The court looked closely at Batise's claims. They found that he could not prove that having better legal help would have changed the outcome of his trial. They also thought that a thirty-five-year sentence was appropriate, especially since Batise had prior felony convictions, including serious crimes. The court explained that a long sentence was justified given the severity of his actions, which involved attacking someone with a machete. Regarding the restitution, the court agreed with Batise that the trial judge did not follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay to the victim. The judge was supposed to take into account whether Batise could afford to make those payments without causing serious hardship to him or his family, and he also needed clear evidence of how much the victim lost. Since this was not done correctly, the court decided to vacate the restitution order and sent the case back to the trial court for further review. In summary, Batise’s conviction was upheld, meaning he remains in prison, but the order about how much he should pay the victim was canceled, and that will be re-evaluated by the trial court.

Continue ReadingF-2001-211

F-2002-324

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-324, Michael Lee Barry appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to burglary and theft. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Barry's felony convictions but modified his misdemeanor sentence for petit larceny to comply with legal limits. One judge dissented. Barry had entered a guilty plea for three felony counts of burglary and one count of petit larceny. As part of a deal, he was accepted into a Drug Court program, which provided him a chance to avoid a lengthy prison sentence if he successfully completed the program. However, if he did not finish the program, he would face significant prison time. During his time in Drug Court, Barry struggled with multiple violations, including testing positive for drug use and not cooperating with the Drug Court rules. Eventually, the state filed to terminate his participation in Drug Court, citing many infractions. After a hearing, Barry was removed from the program and sentenced to substantial prison time. Barry’s appeal pointed out several arguments: he claimed the court had no authority to act because the motion to terminate him from Drug Court was not correctly filed; he argued that being removed for offenses that he had already been punished for was unfair; he asserted that the evidence wasn’t enough to justify his removal; and he stated that his sentence for petit larceny was too long according to the law. The court found that Barry did have proper notice about the termination and that the Drug Court acted correctly. They ruled that multiple violations over time justified his termination from the program. However, they acknowledged that his sentence for petit larceny exceeded what was legally allowed, and they made the necessary modification. In summary, while the court upheld the serious consequences of his actions leading to his removal from the Drug Court, they also corrected the sentencing error for the lesser offense, ensuring the judgment aligned with the laws governing such cases.

Continue ReadingF-2002-324

F-2001-319

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-319, Jan V. Stout appealed her conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court reversed her conviction and remanded the case. One judge dissented. Stout was charged with Grand Larceny in Pawnee County. She was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. However, the judge put her on probation instead of sending her to prison right away. Stout had to pay back $8,500, cover court costs, and spend 90 days in jail. Stout argued that the evidence against her was not good enough. She felt that the testimony from her accomplice, Jacqueline Thompson, was questionable and claimed that she was unfairly treated during the trial. Stout believed that the statements made by the prosecutor misled the jury about Thompson’s guilty plea deal, which affected her right to a fair trial. The court found that there was some evidence linking Stout to the crime, particularly the discovery of stolen items in her office. However, concerns were raised about Thompson’s credibility because the prosecutor had made incorrect statements about her plea deal during the trial. The prosecutor repeatedly said that Thompson's sentence was longer than it actually was, which could lead the jury to doubt Thompson's truthfulness. The judges agreed that the prosecutor's misleading statements about the plea deal were a serious problem. Because Thompson's testimony was crucial to Stout's case, and the jury might have viewed her differently if they had understood the deal correctly, the court determined that Stout's trial was unfair. In conclusion, Stout's conviction for Grand Larceny was reversed, meaning she would not serve time for that crime, and the case was sent back to the lower court for another trial.

Continue ReadingF-2001-319

F-2000-618

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-618, Keith Avey appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence, After Former Conviction of Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Avey's judgment and sentence of eight years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. However, the court requested a remand for a hearing on restitution. One judge dissented. Avey was found guilty by a jury which heard evidence that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. This included observations of his strong smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unstable walking after a collision. The jury decided to give him a punishment of eight years in prison and a fine, along with restitution payment. During the appeal, Avey argued that the trial court made mistakes. He believed the court should have informed the jury about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired. However, the appellate court ruled that the evidence against him was strong enough that not giving this instruction was acceptable. Avey also contended that the trial court should have examined the specific losses experienced by the victims before setting the restitution amount. The appellate court agreed that the trial court failed to provide this hearing, stating that the law requires the court to establish the actual losses suffered by the victims. This is why they sent the case back for a restitution hearing. Avey argued that he did not get a fair defense because his attorney didn’t challenge the order of restitution effectively. However, the court disagreed, saying that the attorney did raise objections about the amount of loss and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance. Furthermore, Avey claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove he was guilty. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Finally, Avey said that the eight-year sentence was too harsh. The appellate court stated that the sentence was appropriate and in line with the law. In summary, while the appellate court upheld Avey's imprisonment and fine, it required a new examination of the restitution amount due to the trial court's failure to provide proper hearings.

Continue ReadingF-2000-618

F-2000-671

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-671, Robert F. Barnes appealed his conviction for Maiming and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Maiming but reversed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. One justice dissented. The case began when Barnes was accused of injuring someone during a single event. The jury found him guilty of Maiming but decided on a lesser charge for the second count. Barnes received a punishment, which included jail time and fines, along with an order for restitution to the victim. When Barnes appealed, he raised several arguments. He claimed that he should not have been punished for both charges since they came from the same event. The court agreed, stating that it was against the law to punish someone multiple times for one crime, so they reversed the second charge. Barnes also argued that the jury should have been given instructions on lesser charges during the trial, but the court found that the evidence did not support this. Thus, the judge's decision was not seen as a mistake. Additionally, Barnes said that there was misconduct during the trial, but the court did not find this to be serious enough to change the original decision. Lastly, the court noted that there was not enough information in the records about the restitution order, so they couldn't decide if it should be adjusted. In summary, the court confirmed the guilt of Barnes for Maiming (Count I) but decided that he should not be punished for the second charge (Count II), which was reversed.

Continue ReadingF-2000-671

F 2000-599

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-599, Charles Earl Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for Omitting to Provide for Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and modify the restitution amount. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Smith, Jr. was found guilty in a court for not taking care of his child. After the trial, he was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay a fine and restitution. The restitution amount was initially set at $10,247.00, but Smith argued this was unfair. The court looked at the case closely and found that the restitution amount should actually be changed to $10,035.25 after considering some payments that Smith had already made. They agreed that the judge had the right to ask for restitution, but the amount needed to be fixed. In the end, the court agreed with Smith about changing the restitution amount but kept the rest of the conviction the same.

Continue ReadingF 2000-599

RE-2000-252

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-252, Kenneth Bristol appealed his conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. No one dissented. Kenneth Bristol was sentenced to serve five years, with a part of the sentence suspended while he followed rules of probation. He had a tough time fulfilling the probation conditions. The state claimed he did not show up for appointments and failed to pay restitution. This led to an application to revoke his suspended sentence. When Bristol was arrested, the court held several hearings but did not finalize his case right away. There were discussions about his appeal, but it wasn’t clear whether it was processed correctly. The court noted that Bristol was not given a fair chance to appeal the earlier decision to reject his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The higher court found that there was not enough evidence to show his suspended sentence was revoked properly. They reversed the lower court's decision and told them to look into the case again, allowing Bristol another chance to appeal his previous decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2000-252

C-2000-1344

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-00-1344, Betts appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Assault on a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for relief regarding some of the convictions due to a lack of adequate factual support for those charges. One judge dissented. Betts had pleaded guilty to several charges in a lower court, but later claimed he did not understand all the details of the offenses or the punishments he could receive. He filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied by the district court. The case was then brought to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The court looked at the reasons Betts provided for wanting to withdraw his plea. One of the main issues was that there was not enough factual evidence to support certain charges against him. For instance, when Betts admitted some wrongdoing, he did not talk about other specific charges like the drug possession or tampering with a vehicle. The court found that because of this, Betts did not really enter his plea to those counts in a fair way. While the court affirmed one of his convictions related to Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, they reversed other convictions regarding Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and related charges. The court also mentioned that there were problems with how restitution was handled, which means determining if and how much money Betts should pay for what he did. Overall, the court sent the case back to the district court to ensure that the restitution issues were corrected and to check if the earlier order of restitution was appropriate for the right case. The court set a timeframe for the district court to work on these issues. In summary, the court found that Betts was not properly informed or supported for several of the charges against him, leading them to reverse some of his convictions while affirming one, and they ordered further hearings on the restitution matter.

Continue ReadingC-2000-1344