Reversal and Remand

M-2016-483

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2016-483, Kermit Lee Brannon, Jr. appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs and Unsafe Lane Use. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Drugs but reversed the Unsafe Lane Use conviction due to insufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented. Kermit Lee Brannon, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for two misdemeanors: driving while under the influence of drugs and unsafe lane use. He was sentenced to one year in jail and a fine for the first charge, and ten days in jail and a fine for the second charge. The sentences were meant to run one after the other. Brannon appealed his convictions, claiming that he was unfairly punished twice for the same incident, that the evidence didn't support his lane change conviction, that his sentence was too harsh, and that his lawyer didn't represent him well. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the case and agreed with Brannon on the second charge. They found that there was not enough proof that he changed lanes without signaling or ensuring that it was safe to do so. Because of this, the court said they needed to cancel Brannon's Unsafe Lane Use conviction and send that part of the case back to be dismissed. Although they agreed with him on one point, Brannon's claims that he was unfairly punished multiple times and that he got a bad deal from his lawyer were not considered because they were connected to the Unsafe Lane Use conviction, which was overturned. The court also looked at the length of Brannon's sentences and decided that, given his past problems with drug charges, the punishment they gave him for driving under the influence was appropriate and not too harsh. In the end, the court decided to keep the conviction for Driving While Under the Influence and reversed the Unsafe Lane Use conviction, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge.

Continue ReadingM-2016-483

RE 2012-0601

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0601, Danyale Lamont McCollough appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Danyale McCollough had pleaded guilty to several charges over the years, which included possession of a firearm and robbery with a firearm. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke these rules, his suspended sentences could be revoked, and he could go to prison. Later, the State, which is the side that brings charges against people, said that McCollough had committed a new crime. This led to a hearing where a judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The judge used some evidence from a different trial to decide this, which McCollough argued was not fair. McCollough said it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from another case without proving it was final. The appeals court agreed with him. They said that the judge had made a mistake by not following the correct legal rules and taking evidence from another trial that was not about the same issues directly related to McCollough’s case. Because of this mistake, the court reversed the revocation of McCollough’s sentences and sent the case back for more review and another chance to prove if he had really violated his probation rules.

Continue ReadingRE 2012-0601

F-2011-866

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial where Mitchell may have the chance to represent himself. One judge dissented. Mitchell was found guilty of serious crimes and was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and additional years for conspiracy. He felt he was not being properly defended by his attorney and had asked multiple times to have his attorney replaced. Eventually, he requested to represent himself, expressing dissatisfaction with his legal counsel. The court found that Mitchell’s request to represent himself was clear and that he understood the risks of doing so. The court concluded that he had the constitutional right to self-representation, which had been violated when his request was denied. Although the court addressed other issues raised in Mitchell’s appeal, the main reason for the reversal was the denial of his right to represent himself. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court acted correctly by not allowing Mitchell to self-represent due to his disruptive behavior during the trial process. In summary, the decision allows Mitchell another opportunity to conduct his own defense, considering that he properly requested this right before the trial proceedings were fully underway.

Continue ReadingF-2011-866

M 2005-0404

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0404, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision. The case involved an appellant who was found guilty by a jury in a district court. He was sentenced to one year for each of the two counts and was fined $1,000. During the appeal, the appellant raised several issues regarding his right to counsel. He argued that he did not knowingly or voluntarily give up his right to have a lawyer during the trial. The appellate court found that while the appellant had filled out a waiver of counsel form, the trial record did not clearly show that he understood the risks of representing himself. The court mentioned that the trial judge should have made sure the appellant was fully aware of what he was giving up by not having a lawyer. As a result, the court believed that the appellant did not make an informed choice about waiving his right to counsel, which affected the fairness of his trial. Because of this main issue, the court did not need to consider the other problems raised by the appellant, such as comments made during the trial and actions taken by the prosecutor. Overall, the court decided that the appellant should have a new trial to ensure he gets a fair chance to defend himself properly.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0404

F 2005-603

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-603, Maurice Ladon Miller appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Maurice Ladon Miller was found guilty of serious crimes, including murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for life for the murder and for six years for conspiracy. The sentences were to be served at the same time and also added to a federal sentence he was already serving. After this, Miller appealed his case. Miller had two main arguments. First, he believed his confession to the police was not voluntary because he thought it was protected by an immunity agreement. Second, he felt he couldn’t present his defense because his lawyer was not allowed to show the jury a recording where a co-defendant said Miller was not involved in the murder. The court looked carefully at both of these arguments. They found that the confession was voluntary. Even though there was some confusion about the immunity agreement, the police had informed Miller that it did not protect him from state charges, and he waived his rights willingly. Therefore, they decided that there was no error in admitting his confession. For the second argument, the court examined the situation where Miller's lawyer recorded the co-defendant admitting to the crime but saying Miller was not involved. This recording was not allowed to be shown to the jury, which the court found to be a mistake. They explained that the recording could have been helpful for Miller's defense, as it contradicted the claim that he was involved in the murder. The absence of this evidence might have affected the trial. Ultimately, the court reversed Miller's convictions and ordered a new trial because they believed the exclusion of the co-defendant’s statement could have led to a different outcome. The dissenting judge felt the evidence against Miller was strong, and the trial court made the right choice in excluding the co-defendant's statement. Thus, the case will be retried to ensure that Miller has a chance to present all relevant evidence in his defense.

Continue ReadingF 2005-603

F-2005-366

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-366, Timothy Purcell Teafatiller appealed his conviction for Possession of Concealed Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Teafatiller was found guilty by a jury for having a small amount of methamphetamine that was discovered in his wallet. He was sentenced to six years in prison. He raised seven main points in his appeal. The court mainly focused on one significant issue: the destruction of the evidence against him, which Teafatiller argued violated his rights. The drugs were received by a state bureau for testing and then sent back to the sheriff’s office for destruction without informing Teafatiller or his lawyer. This meant that Teafatiller could not have the chance to test the evidence that was being used against him. The court found that this action went against laws meant to protect the rights of individuals and ensure a fair trial. The judges concluded that the destruction of the evidence constituted a serious violation of Teafatiller's rights. While in previous similar cases, not having evidence might not have led to a reversible error, in this situation, the specific evidence that formed the basis of the charges was completely destroyed. Because there was no opportunity for Teafatiller to review or challenge the evidence, the court decided the only fair action was to reverse the conviction. As a result, the court mandated that the case be sent back for new proceedings where Teafatiller would have the chance to examine the evidence against him, ensuring his rights were upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2005-366

F 2002-772

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-772, Joseph Alexander Simrak appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Firearm after a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was arrested. He was found with methamphetamine and a firearm, which he challenged in court, arguing that the arrest was not lawful. The appellant claimed that because his arrest was unlawful, all the evidence found during the arrest should not have been used against him in court. The court agreed with the appellant and found that the information used to justify his arrest was not reliable. Therefore, the evidence from the unlawful arrest should not have been included in the trial. The jury had previously decided that the appellant should go to prison for ten years for each charge, and those sentences were to be served one after the other. However, since the court found the arrest illegal, both convictions were reversed. The remaining issues raised by the appellant were not considered because the ruling on the arrest was significant enough to change the outcome of the case. Ultimately, the court stated that the appellant would not be punished for these convictions due to the way the evidence was obtained.

Continue ReadingF 2002-772

F-2003-22

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-22, Desean Terrell Poore appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Murder and Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Manslaughter should be reversed and dismissed, as it was found to be double punishment for a single action. The court also ordered corrections to the judgment's wording concerning the prior felony conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2003-22

J 2001-878

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2001-878, G.S. appealed his conviction for petit larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the trial court's decision and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. G.S. was found to be a delinquent child for committing a crime that would be a crime for an adult, called petit larceny. This meant that he was taken to court to see if he really did what he was accused of. After the trial, a judge decided that G.S. should be placed in a special care program for children and that he should pay for court costs and fees for his lawyer. G.S. was unhappy with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at his case again. He brought up three main problems with his case: 1. He argued that there wasn’t enough of a record for the higher court to review, so his conviction should be changed. 2. He thought that his lawyer didn’t give enough information to the higher court, which meant he didn’t get the help he needed. 3. He also said that there was no evidence showing he agreed to give up his right to a jury trial, which he thought was wrong. The court looked closely at everything, including the records and the written arguments from both sides. They decided that G.S. was right about not having proof he gave up his right to a jury trial. Because of this, they thought the trial court's decision should be reversed, meaning G.S. would get another chance to have his case heard. The judges agreed that the original trial didn’t follow the right rules. A big part of this situation was that when a child is accused of something serious, like stealing, they have rights, including having a jury to listen to their case. In G.S.’s case, there was no paperwork or proof showing he understood and agreed to give up that right. So, the court decided that G.S. should have a new trial to give him a fair chance to defend himself. The decision made by the original trial court was erased, and the case was sent back so it could be done again properly.

Continue ReadingJ 2001-878