Right to Counsel

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 and remand Mitchell's case for a trial where he may be allowed to represent himself. One judge dissented. This case began when Mitchell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy after a jury trial. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 35 years for conspiracy, along with an additional 10 years for unauthorized vehicle use. Mitchell appealed, stating four main reasons why he believed his conviction should be overturned. First, Mitchell claimed that he was not allowed to represent himself during his trial, which he argued violated his rights. He believed he could defend himself better than his attorney. However, the court denied his request for self-representation, stating that it was not in his best interest. The court should have ensured that he was fully aware of the potential risks associated with representing himself before denying his request. Second, Mitchell argued that the laws applied to him during his murder prosecution were not supported by the evidence presented. He believed his rights were violated, which would require the court to dismiss the murder charge. Third, Mitchell stated that he was not allowed to present a full defense in court, suggesting that this was an unfair violation of his rights. Finally, he claimed that his attorney did not provide effective assistance, which is a right guaranteed by law. After reviewing all the information in the case, the court found that Mitchell's first argument was valid. It concluded that the trial court had wrongly denied his request to represent himself and that this mistake warranted a reversal of his conviction. They remanded the case back to the lower court so Mitchell could exercise his right to defend himself. Although the court found that the felony-murder charge against Mitchell was valid, and that there was no error in the jury instructions about the defenses, they acknowledged that these points were not the main issue due to the ruling on self-representation. Consequently, the matter about ineffective counsel was deemed moot. The final decision was to reverse the current judgments against Mitchell and send the case back to start fresh, allowing Mitchell the opportunity to represent himself.

Continue ReadingF-2011-866

C-2012-664

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-664, Juan Gabriel Choxmis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Choxmis's petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning they agreed to look at his case again because he did not receive fair representation at his hearing to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found he should have had a lawyer who did not have a conflict of interest. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2012-664

M 2011-0870

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and case No. M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for driving under the influence and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingM 2011-0870

M 2011-0871

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for misdemeanors related to driving under the influence and other offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing her to have a lawyer during her hearings. One judge dissented. Sherry was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving without a license, and improper backing in a case from December 21, 2010. She initially pleaded no contest to driving under the influence and received a six-month deferred sentence. Later, she was charged again for driving under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. In September 2011, Sherry went to a hearing where she was supposed to represent herself because her request for a lawyer was denied. The judge believed she had enough time to find a lawyer but Sherry argued that she didn't understand how to represent herself and didn't want to waive her right to have an attorney. The court looked into whether Sherry had been properly informed about her right to a lawyer and whether she had given up that right knowingly. It was found that there was no clear record showing that she had chosen to represent herself or that she understood the risks involved. Ultimately, the court decided that denying her the help of a lawyer was a mistake and ordered that she should have a new trial and a new hearing to review her sentence in a fair manner.

Continue ReadingM 2011-0871

F-2012-112

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-112, Gene Freeman Price appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Freeman Price was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intention of committing a crime. He was given a sentence of twelve years in prison. However, Price argued that he did not fully understand his rights before he decided to represent himself in court instead of having a lawyer help him. The court looked closely at the case. They believed the trial court did not do a good job explaining to Price the risks of going to court alone without a lawyer. This meant that Price could not have truly given up his right to a lawyer because he didn't really understand what that meant. The judges decided that because of this mistake, Price's right to have a lawyer was violated. Since this was such a serious error and affected the whole case, the court said they could not ignore it. They ruled that the earlier decision needed to be thrown out, and Price should get a new trial where he could have a lawyer help him.

Continue ReadingF-2012-112

C-2011-592

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-592, Philipe Jean Pace appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the writ and allow the Petitioner to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Philipe Jean Pace was charged with a crime and, instead of going to trial, he decided to plead nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The trial judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he only had to serve the first ten years. After the plea, Pace wanted to change his mind and asked to withdraw his plea, but the court said no. In his appeal, Pace argued two main points. First, he said he didn't understand what he was doing when he gave up his right to have a lawyer help him. He claimed that he didn't really know what would happen if he represented himself. Second, he believed that he was confused and didn’t make a proper decision to plead guilty. The higher court looked at all the details, including what happened in the trial court. They found that the original court did not really explain to Pace the risks of not having a lawyer. They noted that just because he had signed a form saying he wanted to waive his right to counsel, it didn't mean he actually understood what he was giving up. The judges pointed out that there was no evidence in the record that he was properly informed about the dangers of self-representation or that he clearly stated he wanted to represent himself. Because of these problems, the higher court ruled that the lower court made a mistake when it denied Pace's request to withdraw his plea. They believed it was important for a person to fully understand their rights and the consequences of their choices in court. As a result, the court decided that Pace could withdraw his plea and would be able to have a trial.

Continue ReadingC-2011-592

RE-2010-512

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-512, Christopher Lee Anthony appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Anthony's suspended sentences and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. The case started when Anthony pled guilty to several charges and was given suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, the State accused him of breaking those rules by not following a court report and not showing up for court. After the State filed to revoke his sentences, Anthony was given an attorney but later posted bail. The judge then told him he needed to either find his own lawyer or represent himself. During the hearing, Anthony didn't have a lawyer and argued his case on his own. The judge found that he had violated probation and took away his suspended sentences. Anthony then appealed, claiming the judge made a mistake by not allowing him a court-appointed attorney just because he posted bail. The court agreed that the judge should have checked to see if Anthony could afford a lawyer and had not properly addressed Anthony's right to counsel. They ruled that the revocation of Anthony's sentences must be undone, and there should be a new hearing with a proper inquiry about his finances and legal representation.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-512

C-2010-431

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Kinter appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Silvon Dane Kinter was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon in 2009. He had trouble paying his lawyer, and she withdrew from the case. Kinter asked for a public defender but was denied. Kinter then pleaded guilty to the charges because he felt pressured and did not want to represent himself at trial. After pleading guilty, Kinter quickly sought to withdraw his plea, claiming he was not given fair legal help. He argued that his rights were violated because he was not allowed to have a lawyer he could trust and that he was forced to plead guilty under pressure. The court found that Kinter did not get a chance for a proper assessment of his financial situation and that the denial of counsel affected his decision to plead guilty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Kinter, stating that he was denied a fair right to legal representation. They ruled in his favor, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and giving him a chance for a new trial. The case highlights the importance of having a lawyer who can represent a defendant without any problems and ensures they understand their rights fully.

Continue ReadingC-2010-431

F-2009-177

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-177, Jesse James Stout appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child and exhibition of obscene materials to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Jesse James Stout was found guilty by a jury of eight counts of sexual abuse of a child and three counts of exhibiting obscene materials to a minor. He received a total sentence of many years in prison for these convictions. The sentences for some counts were served one after another, which is called consecutive sentencing. Stout raised several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial court should have let him stop talking to the police when he asked for a lawyer. However, the court determined that his request was not clear enough, and since he had not been charged with the crimes at that time, his rights had not been violated. Second, he argued that having eight counts of sexual abuse was wrong when it should have been fewer counts. But the court found that the State had clearly explained all the charges, and the jury was told to look at each claim separately. Third, Stout contended that the trial court made a mistake by changing the charges at the end of the trial. The court allowed the State to change the information for the three counts of showing obscene materials. The trial court said this change would not hurt Stout's defense because the new charge carried a lesser sentence. However, the court found that this amendment was unfair and hurt Stout’s ability to defend himself properly because it changed the nature of what he was being charged with. As a result of these findings, the court affirmed the convictions related to the eight counts of sexual abuse, but reversed the convictions for the three counts of exhibiting obscene materials and ordered a new trial for those counts. Some judges agreed with the decisions while one judge disagreed with the reversal of the three counts.

Continue ReadingF-2009-177

RE 2009-0510

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingRE 2009-0510

RE-2010-0510

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-0510

C-2009-48

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-48, Malissa Latoya Hamill appealed her conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her request and remand the case for a new hearing on her motion to withdraw her plea of no contest. One member of the court dissented. Malissa Hamill had entered her plea in the District Court of Bryan County and was given a ten-year suspended sentence along with a fine. Later, she wrote a letter to the court asking to withdraw her plea, claiming it was not made knowingly and voluntarily. The court held a hearing on her motion, during which she represented herself without a lawyer. The judge believed she had waived her right to have a lawyer assist her, but the court found that this waiver wasn't clear. During the appeal, the issues were whether Hamill knowingly gave up her right to have a lawyer present and whether her plea was truly made in an informed way. The court noted that a defendant has the right to attorney assistance when trying to withdraw a plea. If this right is denied, it can be considered an error unless it's clear that the defendant wouldn't have been able to withdraw their plea anyway. Hamill's claims of innocence and concerns about the validity of her plea could not be disregarded based on the existing records, which were incomplete. Because there was no proper record of what was discussed during her initial plea, the court decided that it couldn’t confirm whether Hamill had fully understood the punishment when she made her plea. This lack of clarity led the court to conclude that Hamill should have a new hearing where she could have legal help. Therefore, the court granted her request, stating that the lower court must hold a new hearing on her motion to withdraw her plea, this time making sure she has the assistance of a lawyer.

Continue ReadingC-2009-48

S-2008-761

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-761, Robert Lee Smallen appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's suppression order of his statements made during a police interview. Smallen's refusal to waive his rights to silence and counsel was upheld, and he was found not to have voluntarily waived those rights. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2008-761

C-2007-821

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-821, Marcus D. Carter appealed his conviction for Failure to Comply with Sex Offender Registration Act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a new hearing on Carter's motion to withdraw his plea. One justice dissented. Carter entered a plea of no contest to the charges against him and was sentenced to five years in prison, which would run at the same time as another sentence he had. After his plea, he wanted to withdraw it and filed a motion for that. However, the court did not hold the required hearing to address his motion within the thirty days that should have been allotted. Carter claimed this was unfair and that he did not get the help he needed from his attorney. The court looked at two important questions: whether Carter's plea was made knowingly and willingly and if the court had the authority to accept it. His argument that the court did not hold the hearing on time was not considered valid for this appeal. However, the court did find that Carter had a right to effective legal representation, which he claimed he did not receive. He stated that his attorney pressured him into taking the plea and led him to misunderstand his potential punishments, making his plea involuntary. The judge noticed that during the hearing, Carter's attorney did not actively support him, as she seemed to be in a difficult situation where she could not defend him without also admitting her own shortcomings. Since there was a conflict of interest, it was decided that Carter should have a new hearing with a different attorney who would not have conflicting interests. The court agreed to grant Carter's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, ensuring he would have the assistance of a conflict-free attorney.

Continue ReadingC-2007-821

F-2006-648

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-648, Cynthia Fern Izon appealed her conviction for embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Cynthia Fern Izon was accused of embezzling money while working as an officer, and a jury found her guilty. After the jury couldn't agree on her punishment, the judge decided that she should serve 40 years in prison. However, 15 of those years were suspended, meaning she would not have to serve them right away, and she was also fined $1,000 and told to pay back $81,000. Cynthia felt that her trial had several problems, and she raised many points during her appeal. First, she said she didn't get proper representation because she chose to represent herself without understanding the risks involved. However, the court found that she clearly stated her wish to represent herself, received help from a standby lawyer, and understood what she was doing. Cynthia also claimed misconduct by the prosecutors made her trial unfair, but the court ruled that these actions didn't deny her a fair trial. She argued that her sentence was too harsh, and the court agreed that there had been an error in how long she could be punished for embezzlement. The original laws meant her punishment should not exceed 10 years, and the court modified her sentence accordingly. Another point Cynthia made was about whether paying restitution would hurt her family financially. The court noted that the trial judge should have considered this but decided that the restitution order was still valid. In addition, Cynthia claimed she faced double punishment because of the restitution and prison time, but the court found this did not violate any laws. The court also mentioned that she was warned about not testifying on her behalf and said there was no evidence that stopped her from presenting evidence. Regarding her husband, who she believed might have lied on the stand, the court ruled that she didn't raise this issue properly during the trial, so it couldn't be revisited now. Cynthia argued that she was denied a speedy trial, but the court decided that the delays were largely due to her actions. While several of her claims were dismissed, the court did agree to lower her sentence to comply with the law regarding embezzlement. In the end, the court upheld Cynthia Fern Izon's conviction but changed her sentence to 10 years in prison, along with the fine and restitution.

Continue ReadingF-2006-648

C-2006-1079

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-06-1079, Brian Daron Harris appealed his conviction for four counts of First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided that Harris was denied his right to counsel during a critical stage of his case, which was the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court found that since Harris' attorney was not present at the hearing, he did not have proper legal representation. This decision led to a determination that Harris should be given another chance to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, this time with independent legal counsel. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2006-1079

RE 2006-0808

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0808, Covey appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order and send the case back for a new hearing with counsel present. One judge dissented. Covey had pled guilty to a crime and was given a suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn't serve time unless she broke the rules again. The State thought she had broken the rules and asked the court to take away her suspended sentence. At the hearing, Covey didn’t have a lawyer because she claimed she couldn’t pay for one. The judge said Covey had enough chances to get a lawyer but decided to go ahead without one. However, the court found that there was no clear proof that Covey was okay with not having a lawyer or that she understood the risks of representing herself. This is important because everyone has the right to have a lawyer help them during important hearings like this one. Because the court didn’t follow the proper rules for allowing Covey to go without a lawyer, they reversed the previous decision and said she should have another hearing with a lawyer or a clear agreement that she didn’t want one.

Continue ReadingRE 2006-0808

F-2006-68

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-68, Gregory Scott Thompson appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. ### Summary of the Case Gregory Scott Thompson was found guilty of First Degree Felony Murder after being involved in an attempted robbery that led to the death of Jerry McQuin. The events occurred on November 18, 2003, when Randy Davis and Clifford Hamilton went to Laquita Stevenson’s house. Tensions rose between Davis and McQuin, who was living with Stevenson at the time. Thompson, along with Gatewood, arrived after Davis called him over. When McQuin returned home, Thompson and Gatewood armed with guns demanded McQuin's car keys. McQuin was forced outside where he was shot after a brief confrontation about the keys. Stevenson, still inside, heard the commotion and eventually the gunshots that killed McQuin. Although no one directly saw Thompson shoot McQuin, evidence showed he was actively involved in the robbery attempt that resulted in McQuin's death. ### Court Opinions The court addressed several key legal arguments presented by Thompson: 1. **Exclusion of Evidence**: Thompson argued that the trial court should have allowed evidence that McQuin had drugs and money, which could suggest a drug deal gone wrong. The court ruled that this evidence didn’t sufficiently connect another person to the crime and would risk confusing the jury. 2. **Cross-Examination Limitations**: Thompson claimed his rights were violated when the court limited his lawyer's ability to cross-examine witnesses. The court found that the trial judge exercised discretion within reasonable limits. 3. **Custodial Statements**: Thompson contended that his rights were violated when his statements made after invoking his right to counsel were allowed into evidence. The court found that he did not clearly assert his right to counsel at the time and therefore the statements were admissible. 4. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Thompson maintained that there was not enough evidence to convict him since no one saw him shoot McQuin. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to show he was an active participant in the attempted robbery, thus affirming the conviction. 5. **Sentencing Issues**: Thompson challenged various sentencing procedures, including that the trial was improperly bifurcated and that he was not correctly informed about his eligibility for parole. The court acknowledged these errors and modified the sentence accordingly. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Thompson argued that his attorney failed to effectively represent him in several respects. The court ruled that these claims did not demonstrate a significant chance that the outcome would have been different. Both the prosecution's case and Thompson's defense contributed to the complex nature of the trial. Ultimately, while his conviction was upheld, the errors in sentencing led to a modification of his sentence to life with the possibility of parole.

Continue ReadingF-2006-68

F-2005-1094

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1094, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. #n dissented. Charles Arnold Fields was found guilty of delivering a controlled drug after having been convicted of felonies before. The jury gave him a sentence of 15 years to life in prison and a big fine. Fields did not like his representation during the trial, and he wanted to fire his lawyers. But the judge told him he could either continue with his lawyers or represent himself with them helping him. The case had three main issues. The first one was about whether Fields gave up his right to have a lawyer in a way that was clear and fair. The second issue questioned whether his long sentence was okay. The last issue looked at whether the judge made a mistake by not allowing Fields to challenge some evidence. The court found that Fields did not really ask to represent himself, and the judge did not explain to him the problems that could arise from not having a lawyer. Because of this, the court said he deserved a new trial. Since they decided on the first issue, they did not need to look into the other two issues. The court's final decision was to cancel the previous judgment and send the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1094

F-2005-785

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-785, Charles Milton Smith, Sr., and in case No. F-2005-786, Bonnie Smith appealed their convictions for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse their convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Charles Milton Smith, Sr. was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), child endangerment, and possession of a controlled substance. Bonnie Smith faced similar charges for manufacturing a controlled substance and child endangerment. During the trial, both were found guilty of the charges against them. The jury recommended sentences that included lengthy prison time and substantial fines. However, they claimed that their rights were violated because they did not have court-appointed lawyers. Initially, they were considered unable to afford an attorney, but after someone paid their bond, the trial court ruled that they were no longer indigent and had to represent themselves, which they argued was not fair. The court looked closely at whether the trial court properly assessed their financial situation before denying them their right to legal representation. They pointed out that just because bond was posted, it does not automatically mean someone can afford a lawyer. The court found that there was no record showing that the trial court had properly checked their financial status or informed them that they might still qualify for a lawyer. Since having a lawyer is essential for a fair trial, the court reversed the Smiths' convictions and ordered a new trial where they would have a chance to properly have legal representation.

Continue ReadingF-2005-785

F-2005-829

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

Continue ReadingF-2005-829

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

RE-2005-536

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-536, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had revoked his suspended sentences. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2005-536

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for multiple counts of serious crimes, including First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy, following a jury trial in Oklahoma County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Marion Lewis was found guilty of several serious charges after a trial where he represented himself. He went to trial and was sentenced to life without the chance for parole for most counts and twenty years for another. He believed the court did not properly warn him about the risks of representing himself and raised concerns about his mental ability to stand trial. He also argued that the trial court did not allow him enough time to prepare his defense, which he felt hurt his case. The court found that the trial judge did not give Lewis enough time after he was allowed to represent himself just a few days before the trial started. This lack of time made it hard for him to gather witnesses and evidence that he thought were important for his defense. The court decided the denial of his request for more time was unfair and violated his rights. In the end, the court reversed Lewis's convictions and ordered a new trial, agreeing that the trial process had not been fair. However, one judge disagreed, believing that the trial court acted correctly in denying the request for more time, stating that Lewis had not shown he would have been able to present a strong defense even if he had been given more time.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Lewis was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison without parole for the majority of the counts and 20 years for one count. He then appealed this decision, raising three main problems he believed were wrong in his trial. First, he argued that he wasn't properly warned about the risks of representing himself in court, which meant he didn't fully understand what he was giving up by choosing to do so. This was important because it related to his rights as a citizen, protected under the Sixth Amendment. Second, he claimed that the trial court didn't look carefully at whether he was capable of standing trial. He thought there were signs that suggested he wasn't mentally fit for the trial, which might have violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, he complained that the trial court wouldn't allow him to delay the trial, which prevented him from calling witnesses and putting forth a strong defense. He believed this decision also violated his rights. The court noted that Mr. Lewis had been asking to represent himself for a long time before the trial. However, he only received permission to do so a few days before his trial began. The trial court denied his request for more time to prepare and to gather witnesses that he wanted to bring to help his case. The judges noted that having enough time to prepare is important for someone defending themselves in court, especially when they have only just been allowed to do so. The court found that denying him more time was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. As a result, the court agreed that his right to present a defense had been violated when the trial court wouldn’t allow a continuance. This led them to reverse his convictions and order a new trial, meaning he would have another chance to fight the accusations against him. The other issues he raised about warnings and competency were not necessary to discuss because they were overshadowed by the first issue. In conclusion, the court decided that Mr. Lewis's convictions were unfair, and he will get a chance to have a new trial. One judge disagreed with this outcome, feeling that the trial court made the right decision in denying a continuance and that Mr. Lewis had not shown how he was harmed by that decision.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577