In OCCA case No. RE-2006-262, Gessel appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Gessel’s revocation was not valid due to a lack of adequate notice about the reasons for his revocation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-363, the appellant appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence but modified the sentence to six years of incarceration. One judge dissented. The background of the case includes that the appellant entered a guilty plea in July 2003 and was sentenced to twelve years, which was suspended on the condition that she complete an inpatient drug treatment program. However, in March 2005, the state filed an application to revoke her suspended sentence due to several violations, including failure to report to her probation officer and failing to comply with drug testing and treatment requirements. The court found that she also had new drug-related charges against her. In November 2005, a hearing took place where she admitted to the violations. The court then revoked her suspended sentence completely. The appellant later tried to withdraw her plea regarding the revocation but was denied. The review showed that the court followed proper procedures, and the evidence supported the decision to revoke her sentence. Although the court upheld the decision, it decided to lower the amount of time she would spend incarcerated from twelve years to six years.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1032, Natalie Blades appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but remanded the case to ensure that the sentences would run concurrently instead of consecutively. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1033, Wren appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but modified the length of her imprisonment. One judge dissented. Wren had originally been sentenced to four years in prison, which was suspended based on her agreeing to probation terms after entering a nolo contendere plea. She did not follow the rules of her probation on several occasions, which led to her first violation and a thirty-day jail sentence. Eventually, the state filed a second motion to revoke her suspended sentence after she failed drug tests and did not pay court costs. Even after a treatment program, Wren continued to use methamphetamine. When the court determined that she had broken her probation rules again, it revoked her suspended sentence entirely. However, Wren argued that her full sentence shouldn't be four years since part of it had already been executed with her previous thirty-day incarceration. The court agreed that the final sentence was actually longer than it should have been and modified the length to reflect the time she had already served. In the end, the court affirmed the revocation of her suspended sentence but adjusted the total imprisonment time to account for her earlier time served, confirming that she needs to serve three years and three hundred thirty-five days of her sentence.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-614, the appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree rape by instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to a total of 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment. However, the judge suspended all but the first 6 months, allowing the appellant to serve that time in prison and then go on probation with specific rules. One of these rules, known as Rule 9, prohibited the appellant from using pornography or visiting places like adult bookstores and massage parlors. Later, the state accused the appellant of violating this rule. They claimed that he participated in a live sex show on the Internet, which was viewed by an undercover police officer. The officer discovered the show after receiving a tip about the appellant's activities. Following a hearing, the judge ruled that the appellant did indeed violate the conditions of his probation and revoked the remaining part of the suspended sentence. The appellant brought forth three main arguments in his appeal. First, he claimed that his right to a fair attorney was compromised because his lawyer had previously worked as a prosecutor in his original rape case. The court found that although an attorney representing both sides creates concerns, in this case, the attorney was no longer working for the prosecution at the time of the revocation hearing. Therefore, the court did not find this to be a reversible error. Second, the appellant argued that the state had not given him enough notice about the specific allegations against him. The court agreed that the notice was lacking but noted that the appellant had actual knowledge of the issues at hand and did not show any harm from the lack of notice. Lastly, the appellant asserted that revoking his entire suspended sentence was too harsh. The court recognized that the appellant had shown good behavior while on probation and that he had been actively working on his rehabilitation. The judge noted that the probation officer and treatment providers believed that a lesser sanction would have been appropriate instead of total revocation. Thus, the court decided to modify the revocation order so that the appellant would only serve the time he had already spent in confinement and would be returned to probation. The revised decision was a mix of affirming some parts of the original ruling while changing the overall outcome regarding the revocation of probation.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-593, the Appellant appealed his conviction for revoking his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the Appellant, after pleading guilty to Sexual Battery, was sentenced to five years in prison, which was suspended under certain conditions. However, he did not follow these conditions, leading to the State filing a motion to revoke his suspended sentence multiple times. Initially, the Appellant missed treatment sessions, failed to pay necessary fees, and showed a lack of effort to engage in his treatment. After some violations, he had a short revocation of sixty days. Later, the State found he had violated other conditions, such as not registering as a sex offender and changing his residence without informing his probation officer. During the hearing, the judge decided that the Appellant had not followed the rules, thus revoking his suspended sentence and requiring him to serve five years in prison. The Appellant argued that since he had already lost sixty days, his remaining time should be less than five years. The State agreed, stating it should be four years and ten months instead. The court acknowledged the Appellant’s previous short revocation and made the necessary adjustment to his sentence length. Although the Appellant argued the full revocation was too harsh, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision, stating that it was within their discretion to revoke the sentence based on the Appellant's repeated failures to comply with probation rules. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke the Appellant's remaining suspended sentence but corrected the duration of time he was required to serve.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-1203, Floyd Andrew Morris appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence and remand the case for correction of the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. Floyd Andrew Morris had a suspended sentence for growing and having marijuana after he pleaded guilty. Initially, he was supposed to serve ten years for one charge and one year for another, but both sentences were put on hold. Later, the state argued that he broke the rules of his probation by not following the drug court program instructions and testing positive for drugs. After some hearings, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentence. However, there was confusion about how much of that sentence should actually be carried out. The appeal pointed out that the written order didn’t match what the judge had said before and that the time he was supposed to serve was excessive based on what he had done. The court found that the way the sentence was ordered needed to be corrected to show that Morris should serve ten years minus the thirty days he had already served. They decided not to change the decision to revoke the entire suspended sentence, as they believed it was not an unreasonable choice given the situation.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated him from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began on April 10, 2002, when the appellant pleaded no contest to a DUI charge. He was given a suspended sentence, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules. He also had to pay a fine and do community service. Later, he faced another DUI charge. He pleaded guilty again with a promise that if he successfully completed the Drug Court program, he wouldn’t have to face further charges for the first DUI. However, on May 1, 2003, the State accused him of violating the terms of the Drug Court program. The State claimed he had been sanctioned multiple times for not following the rules. On August 5, 2003, the court decided to revoke his suspended sentence and ended his participation in the Drug Court program. The appellant believed the court made a mistake by terminating him from Drug Court based on violations he had already been punished for. He felt this was unfair and argued it amounted to double jeopardy, which means being punished twice for the same offense. The State argued that they were not punishing him again for those violations but believed that the sanctions had not helped him change his behavior. The court examined the situation and found that the appellant had already faced consequences for his earlier violations. It agreed with him that the reasons for his termination were flawed. The judges noted that if prior violations were allowed to be counted again for the same termination, it would be unfair and might discourage other participants in Drug Court. The court decided to remand the case back to the lower court, allowing the appellant to return to the Drug Court program with the original rules he had agreed upon. The judges highlighted that a new violation must occur in order for more severe actions, like termination, to be taken. In summary, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, indicating that the reasons for his termination from Drug Court were not valid, thus restoring his opportunity to complete the program.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-902, Toni Jo Wallace appealed her conviction for obtaining merchandise by means of a bogus check. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but modified her sentence in Case No. CF-2000-225 from five years to one year. One judge dissented. Toni Jo Wallace faced multiple charges over several cases, including obtaining goods through a bogus check and various charges related to forgery and possession of drugs. Her sentences were initially suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she stayed out of trouble. However, she committed new crimes and failed to pay fines, leading the state to seek the revocation of her suspended sentences. During the hearing, the judge found that Wallace did violate the terms of her probation and decided to revoke the suspended sentences in all her cases. Wallace argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking all her suspended sentences instead of giving her a chance to improve or face less severe punishment. She also felt that the punishment she received was too harsh and that the judge should not have made her new sentences serve longer than her original agreement. The court reviewed the judge's decision and felt that it was within his rights to revoke the sentences. They noted the importance of following through on punishments when someone breaks the rules again. However, they agreed that the initial five-year sentence for one of the charges was longer than allowed by law, so they shortened that sentence. In the end, while Wallace's appeal did not succeed in reversing her convictions, she did see a reduction in one of her sentences. The court emphasized that following the rules is essential, especially for someone on probation, while also ensuring sentences are fair and within legal limits.
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.
In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0106, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation in one case and affirm it in another. One judge dissented. The appellant had a history of legal issues. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to burglary and received a five-year deferred sentence. This means he would not go to jail immediately but had to follow certain rules for those five years. In 1999, he pleaded guilty again, this time for having a firearm as a felon. After some time, a hearing took place to see if the appellant broke the rules of his suspended sentences. The court decided to take away part of his suspended sentence in both cases. However, the appellant argued that the court should not have been able to do that because his first sentence had already expired before the new hearing, making it unfair to revoke it. The court looked into this and agreed with the appellant on the first case, stating they had no right to take away the suspended sentence because it was no longer valid. However, for the second case, they found that the state had followed the proper steps and had the right to revoke his suspended sentence there. In the end, the court told the lower court to dismiss the revocation for the first case, but they maintained the revocation for the second case.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-397, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including drug possession and firearms charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved Michael Wayne Hackler, who had been previously convicted in three separate cases. He was given five years of suspended sentences for felony and misdemeanor drug and firearm offenses. However, the state claimed he violated his probation by committing new crimes, which led to a petition to revoke his suspended sentences. During the revocation hearing, the judge decided that some evidence obtained against Hackler could not be used to revoke his probation due to improper police actions. However, the judge also ruled that the police behavior was not serious enough to apply a rule that would prevent that evidence from being considered in the revocation hearing. After examining the evidence, the court found that the appellant had indeed violated the terms of his probation and revoked his suspended sentences. The judge’s rulings were questioned, but the appeals court agreed that there was no major mistake in how the judge made his decisions. However, the court did note that the written sentences needed to be changed to show the correct punishments for some of the misdemeanor charges. In the end, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court to revoke the suspended sentences and ordered corrections to be made to the judgments regarding the sentences imposed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-455, Janis Gale McAbee appealed her conviction for the unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. McAbee had originally pled guilty to the charges and received a five-year suspended sentence, which meant she would not have to serve time in prison if she followed the rules of her probation. However, the state claimed that she broke those rules by committing new crimes. A petition was filed to revoke her suspended sentence, and during the hearing, the judge decided that the evidence collected by the police could still be used in the revocation hearing even if it may have been obtained inappropriately. The judge believed that the police did not act so wrongly that it would be shocking or unfair. After hearing the evidence, the judge found that McAbee had violated her probation. Even though she argued that the evidence was not enough to support the revocation, the court disagreed and said that what was found was enough to prove she broke the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep McAbee's sentence as it was but ordered a correction to the records to show that one of her sentences should actually have been one year instead of five years. The court affirmed the lower court's decision while making this correction.
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.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-86 and RE-2003-87, Christi Marie Farris appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but remanded the case to the district court to order that the sentences be served concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1481, Anthony John Hathcock appealed his conviction for Omitting To Provide For Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new acceleration hearing. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Hathcock pled no contest to the charges in November 2001 and was given a five-year deferred sentence. This means he didn't go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules, like paying child support. He was supposed to pay $100 a month for current support and catch up on a larger amount he owed. However, the State said he failed to make these payments and asked the court to speed up his sentence, which was called accelerating the sentence. A hearing took place in June 2002 where Hathcock represented himself, meaning he didn't have a lawyer. The judge decided that Hathcock broke the rules of his deferred sentence and sentenced him to one year in prison. Hathcock then appealed this decision, saying three main things. First, he claimed he didn’t effectively waive his right to have a lawyer. Second, he argued that the State didn't provide good evidence to justify speeding up his sentence. Third, he pointed out that it was unclear what his new sentence was supposed to be. The court looked at these claims during the appeal. They agreed with Hathcock that he did not properly waive his right to a lawyer and that this was an important issue. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send it back to the lower court for a new hearing, ensuring that Hathcock would have legal representation this time. Overall, the court's order was that Hathcock's sentence acceleration was not valid as he was not given proper legal help during the initial proceedings.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-31, Nemol Joe Fox appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second or Subsequent Offense, and misdemeanor Driving Under Revocation. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. One judge dissented. Mr. Fox entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, with five years suspended, plus fines for both charges. He later asked to withdraw his plea, saying he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court found that Mr. Fox was not properly advised about the option of treatment for his drinking problem, which is allowed under the law for such cases. Because of this, the court decided that his plea should be allowed to be withdrawn. The original sentence was reversed, and Mr. Fox was granted another chance to address these issues. One judge disagreed, stating that the trial court likely considered all options, including treatment, when deciding on the sentence. The dissenting judge felt that Mr. Fox should not get to change his plea because he and his lawyer had not raised this issue earlier in court. Overall, the main decision was that Mr. Fox did not get the fair chance he should have had to understand his options, specifically regarding treatment for his alcohol issues.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-1077, Tracy Allen Mitchon appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation and send the case back to the District Court to correct the written order regarding the time Mitchon had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1245, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but modify the sentence for conspiracy to ten years. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-523, Lonnie George Baker, Jr., appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modified the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. Baker had pleaded guilty to possessing illegal drugs and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't go to jail unless he broke the rules. However, he violated the terms of his suspension, leading the state to file a petition to revoke it. After a hearing, the judge decided that Baker had indeed broken the rules and revoked his suspended sentence. Initially, the judge announced Baker should be locked up for 4 years and 4 months. But later, Baker argued that this was incorrect because he had less time left to serve. The state agreed with him on that point. They also discussed extra time Baker spent in a mental hospital, but the court decided he wasn't entitled to credit for those days. Ultimately, the court agreed that Baker should go to jail, but they changed his sentence from 4 years and 4 months to 4 years and 90 days.
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.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-1070, Billy Joe Baldwin appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Feloniously Pointing a Weapon, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Baldwin's suspended sentences but modified the sentences to one year revoked with the remainder suspended, to run concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1120, Mitchell Wayne Pate appealed his conviction for Felony Omission to Provide for a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. The State agreed that the appeal had merit, and the court changed the previous decision to state that only one year and six months of Pate's suspended sentence is revoked.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-749, Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. had originally entered a guilty plea for Second Degree Burglary and Concealing Stolen Property in 1993. He was given three years of imprisonment on both charges, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to jail if he followed certain rules. However, he committed another crime in 1993, which violated the terms of his suspended sentences. In 1994, the State applied to revoke his suspended sentences because of this new crime. There was a significant delay before the hearing actually took place. Heath was not given a hearing until 2000, which was almost six years after the application to revoke was filed. He argued that the State did not act quickly enough and that this delay meant the revocation should not happen. The State admitted that they had made a mistake and agreed with Heath’s concerns about the delay. The court agreed with Heath’s argument and decided to reverse the order that revoked his suspended sentence. They also instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. The decision meant that Heath’s original sentences were not enforced, and he would not have to serve them because the State did not handle the process in a timely manner.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649 and RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation conditions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence; however, it instructed the lower court to make a correction regarding the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case started back in 1996 when the appellant took a plea deal for a charge related to pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended while he was on probation. However, by 1996, five years of this probation was revoked due to several violations. In 2000, the state accused the appellant of more violations, including failing to report to his probation officer, moving without notice, and using marijuana. The court initially delayed proceedings, offering a chance for the appellant to meet specific conditions like paying fees and performing community service, which if completed, would see the revocation dismissed. Later in June 2000, the appellant pleaded guilty to another charge related to neglecting to provide for a child, receiving another suspended sentence. Following this, the state claimed he violated his probation again by committing new offenses. In February 2001, further violations were noted which included again not paying fees or attending required programs. A hearing took place where the court ultimately decided to revoke all of the appellant's suspended sentences. The appellant argued that the court was wrong to revoke his entire sentence given the circumstances, but the court found sufficient evidence that he violated probation rules. The appeal confirmed that the appellant had multiple opportunities to meet the probation requirements but did not follow through. While the court affirmed the revocation, it recognized that the appellant’s remaining time on one of the sentences was less than what the trial court indicated and ordered a correction about it.