Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon

F-2018-136

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-136, Michael Emmanuel Ishman appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ishman's conviction and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Ishman who was trialed and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each count, with all sentences running consecutively. Ishman raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the evidence presented, jury instructions, and the conduct of his trial. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery and determined that the witness's corroboration was not required as she was not considered an accomplice. The court also addressed claims of instructional errors regarding the punishment range for firearm possession, finding that the errors were harmless because the jury recommended the maximum sentence. Moreover, the court dismissed claims about the introduction of evidence of other bad acts and the failure to instruct the jury on lesser offenses. The court determined that defense counsel performed adequately, stating that there was no evidence that any of the claimed errors affected the trial's outcome. The court summarized that the jury's recommendation of life sentences was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and affirmed all judgments made by the trial court. Overall, the court did not find sufficient grounds for relief based on Ishman's claims and decided to uphold the conviction and sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2018-136

F-2017-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1261, Carlos Santana Gunter appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault, and battery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Carlos Santana Gunter was found guilty by a jury in Canadian County for robbery and two counts of assault and battery. He received a sentence of thirty years for each count. The judge ruled that Gunter must serve at least 85% of the robbery sentence before being eligible for parole, and the assault sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the robbery sentence. Gunter raised several arguments on appeal. First, he claimed that asking the victims about the effects of their injuries during the trial was improper and prejudiced his case. The court found that this testimony was relevant to establish elements of the crimes and did not affect the outcome significantly. Second, Gunter argued that his right to remain silent was violated when a police officer mentioned that he asked for an attorney during questioning. The court agreed this was an error but concluded that the evidence against Gunter was so strong that it did not impact the fairness of the trial. Third, Gunter challenged the use of his previous felony convictions to enhance his sentence, saying he didn’t have a lawyer during those earlier convictions. The court noted that Gunter had acknowledged those convictions during the trial and failed to show any actual error regarding legal representation. Fourth, he alleged prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the prosecutor made unfair comments that influenced the jury. The court found these comments did not render the trial unfair. Fifth, Gunter argued he did not receive effective legal counsel during the trial. However, the court decided that because his other claims did not merit relief, he could not prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Lastly, Gunter asserted that the combined errors in his case deprived him of a fair trial. The court ruled that even when considering all claimed errors together, they did not affect the outcome. In the end, the court affirmed Gunter's conviction and sentence, concluding that the evidence against him was compelling, and the trial was fair despite the issues raised.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1261

F-2017-1127

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1127, Jones appealed his conviction for robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm after a previous felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Jones was found guilty of robbing someone with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and having a gun after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to serve many years in prison for these crimes. Jones argued several points in his appeal. He believed it was wrong for him to stand trial for the gun possession charge when the earlier ruling had dismissed that part of his case. The court found that the process used to bring that charge back was okay. Jones also thought that statements he made after being arrested should not have been allowed in trial because he was scared and did not have a lawyer present. However, since he did not say this during the trial, the court looked at it carefully but decided it did not affect the trial in a serious way. Jones requested a special instruction for the jury about flight, meaning that if someone runs away from a situation, it might mean they are guilty. The court denied this request because Jones denied being at the crime scene, so the flight instruction was not needed. Finally, Jones claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the closing arguments. The court concluded that while some comments might not have been ideal, they did not make the trial unfair. All in all, Jones's appeal did not lead to a change in his conviction or sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1127

F-2018-158

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-158, Nathan Simmons appealed his conviction for accessory to first degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Nathan Simmons was found guilty after a jury trial held in Tulsa County. He was charged with being an accessory to first degree murder, which means he helped someone commit that crime, and for robbery with a dangerous weapon, which means he was involved in taking something with a weapon. The jury gave him a tough sentence: 36 years for being an accessory, 10 years for the first robbery, and 17 years for the second robbery. All the sentences were to be served one after the other. Simmons had two main arguments for his appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor made a mistake during the closing argument that took away his chance for a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor suggested that he would not serve the full amount of time for his first conviction and this made the jury decide to give him longer sentences. However, the court found that there was no significant error in what the prosecutor said during the trial that would change the outcome. Second, Simmons claimed that his lawyer did not do a good job because they did not object to what the prosecutor said. The court reviewed this claim carefully. Using a standard that looks at whether the lawyer's actions were truly wrong and if they affected the trial’s outcome, the court decided that Simmons did not have a strong case. Ultimately, the court kept the original sentence and decision made by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2018-158

F-2018-202

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-202, the appellant appealed her conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, conspiracy to commit a felony, kidnapping, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Katherine Marie Houser, who was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury gave her a variety of sentences, including five years for robbery, two years for possession of a firearm during a felony, and six months for kidnapping. Some of these sentences were set to run at the same time, which is called concurrent sentences. Katherine argued that her lawyer did not represent her well, especially by not challenging one of the counts against her (the possession of a firearm). Although this count was eventually dismissed by the state, she felt that just being tried for it affected the jury’s decisions on other counts. The court looked at this claim and decided that even if the lawyer made a mistake, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. The evidence against her for the other charges was strong, and the jurors weren’t likely swayed by having one extra charge against her. In her second argument, Katherine said that a fine imposed on her should not count because the judge did not mention it during the sentencing, even though she hadn’t complained about it at that time. The court found that since she didn’t raise an issue at the right time, she had a harder time proving there was an error worth correcting. Ultimately, both of Katherine's arguments were denied, and the court decided to uphold her convictions and sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2018-202

C-2016-718

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-718, Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence for one count where he was not charged, but affirmed the rest of the convictions. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2016-718

C-2015-1057

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-1057, Steven Casey Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition and allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of what happened in this case: Steven Casey Jones was charged with robbery involving a dangerous weapon. He decided to plead guilty to this charge as part of an agreement, thinking he would get a lighter sentence. However, after he pleaded guilty, he felt that he had been given wrong information about the punishment he could face. Jones said that his attorney told him the minimum punishment was twenty years in prison, but he later found out that it was actually less. Because of this wrong information, he felt he had to plead guilty to a fifteen-year sentence, which was still longer than what it should have been. He later tried to take back his guilty plea, but this was denied. So, he appealed the decision in court, wanting to show that his plea was not made with the correct information. The court reviewed the entire case, including what Jones and his attorney had discussed. It turned out that the attorney's mistake about the punishment range was significant. The State also agreed that this error could have influenced Jones's decision. Due to this mistake, the court decided to let Jones withdraw his guilty plea and go back to the start of his case. This meant he would have another chance to present his arguments about the robbery charge without the misunderstanding affecting him. After considering everything, the court decided to grant Jones's petition, which means they agreed with him and wanted to fix the mistake. The case was sent back to the lower court to allow Jones to withdraw his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2015-1057

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

F-2011-1047

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1047, Melvin Edward Dan appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and possession of a firearm after previous juvenile adjudication for a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery and burglary, but reverse the conviction for possession of a firearm. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1047

F-2009-614

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-614, John Wesley Revard appealed his conviction for Robbery With A Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify Appellant's sentence to thirty (30) years of imprisonment. One judge dissented. John Wesley Revard was found guilty by a jury for using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. The jury decided he should spend 40 years in prison, but his appeal led to a change that reduced his sentence to 30 years. Revard claimed several mistakes were made during his trial. He argued that the trial court should have allowed the jury to consider a less serious charge of robbery. The court found that there was not enough evidence to support the lesser charge, so they did not agree with that argument. He also said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial and that it made the trial unfair. However, the court looked at everything and concluded that while there may have been some questionable remarks, they did not harm the fairness of his trial. Revard pointed out that the court allowed evidence of other crimes that he was not being tried for, claiming it unfairly affected his case. The court agreed that some of this evidence was not relevant but believed it did not change the outcome of the trial. Additionally, Revard claimed that certain references to probation during the sentencing phase were not proper and prejudiced the jury against him. The court found that these references did affect his rights and decided that this was a significant enough mistake to change his sentence. Lastly, Revard argued that his lawyer did not perform well enough to help him during the trial. The court determined that even with these claims, he did not provide enough evidence to show that he would have won if his lawyer had done a better job. In conclusion, the court confirmed his conviction but reduced his prison term from 40 to 30 years based on the issues presented during the sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2009-614

F-2007-1151

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-1151, Keynon Michael Owens appealed his conviction for First-Degree Felony Murder and Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for felony murder and to affirm the conviction for robbery. One judge dissented. Owens was tried for the murder of Javier Carranza and robbery of Jesus Carranza. He was convicted of felony murder, with the court determining that the murder happened during a robbery. However, the jury had previously acquitted Owens of the robbery charge against Javier Carranza. The court noted that this inconsistency needed to be addressed. Owens argued the evidence was not enough to support his convictions. The court examined the evidence and determined it was sufficient for the robbery charge against Jesus, but not necessarily for the felony murder related to Javier since the robbery charge for Javier was not convicted. The jury had expressed confusion during deliberations, asking questions that suggested they weren’t clear on how the charges connected. The court found errors related to jury instructions and how the trial court responded to the jury’s inquiries during deliberation. Due to this confusion and because the acquittal was logically inconsistent with the felony murder conviction, the court decided to reverse the felony murder conviction but upheld the robbery conviction. The dissenting judge disagreed with reversing the felony murder conviction, arguing that the jury's decision, even if inconsistent, could still be valid and supported by evidence.

Continue ReadingF-2007-1151

F-2006-1339

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1339, Robert Larue Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon after being previously convicted of two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Jones's conviction should be reversed and that a retrial should take place with proper instructions. One judge dissented from this decision. Jones was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to fifty years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including whether the evidence was enough to support his conviction, if the jury was properly instructed on his alibi defense, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court determined that the trial court made an error by refusing to allow Jones to offer an alibi defense. It was concluded that he should have been given an instruction regarding this defense because he presented enough evidence to support it. The court noted that the law states a defense should be given when there is sufficient evidence for the jury to consider. Due to the lack of an alibi instruction during the trial, the court found that this mistake was significant enough to require a new trial, where Jones could properly present his defense. The court reversed the previous judgment and ordered a new trial with the right legal instructions provided to the jury. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court was correct in its decision and that any error in not giving the alibi instruction was not harmful to the overall case.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1339

F-2006-469

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-469, Ricky Dale Hester appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, First Degree Arson, Conspiracy, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court affirmed his convictions on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, but reversed the conviction on Count 5 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the kidnapping conviction. Hester was found guilty after a series of serious crimes. The events began when he, along with co-defendant Carl Myers, targeted Richard Hooks. They lured Hooks to a vacant house under false pretenses, where they planned to rob him. Hooks was beaten, stabbed multiple times, and then his body was moved to a garage that was set on fire. The jury sentenced Hester to life in prison without parole for the murder, and significant prison terms for the other counts. During the trial, various pieces of evidence were presented, including confessions made by Hester. However, he raised concerns about certain jury instructions and the admission of evidence. Hester argued that a specific instruction given to the jury about co-conspirator liability was incorrect, as it could lead the jury to presume guilt simply because he was part of a conspiracy. The court found that the jury was properly instructed on the law, and that the evidence presented showed Hester's active involvement in the crimes. He also challenged the trial court’s failure to provide instructions regarding the need for corroboration of confessions and accomplice testimony. The court ruled that sufficient evidence supported Hester’s confessions and that any omission in instructions did not impact the trial's fairness. Hester claimed that the admission of statements made by his co-defendant during the conspiracy was improper and that his statements to his partner were protected by spousal privilege. The court disagreed, finding that the trial had properly handled those matters and that the evidence substantiating the crimes was strong. Despite Hester's arguments, the court determined that the evidence was enough to support the convictions for murder, arson, conspiracy, and robbery, finding he played a crucial role in the criminal acts committed. However, due to a lack of evidence showing an intent to extort while holding Hooks against his will, the kidnapping conviction was reversed. In the end, while Hester's more serious convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged flaws in the evidence related to the kidnapping charge, leading to that particular conviction being dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2006-469

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

F-2003-257

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-257, Gregory Kyle Malone appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Burglary but affirmed the conviction for Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. One judge dissented. Malone was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison for burglary and forty years in prison for robbery. During the trial, he argued that there were mistakes made, including incorrect jury instructions and insufficient evidence for the burglary charge. Malone claimed the court made an error by allowing the jury to convict him based on instructions that included an offense he wasn’t charged with. The burglary charge required proof that he intended to commit robbery or assault when he broke into the house, but the jury was given broader instructions that didn't align with the specifics of his charge. This was seen as a violation of his rights, as he should have been able to defend against the exact crime he was accused of. The court agreed with Malone on this point, determining that the trial court had provided wrong instructions that could have influenced the jury's decision. As a result, they reversed the conviction for First Degree Burglary. However, they affirmed the conviction for Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon, finding that the evidence against him was strong enough for that charge. In conclusion, the court reversed the first charge of First Degree Burglary and kept the second charge of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon, which meant Malone would go back to court for the burglary charge.

Continue ReadingF-2003-257

F-2002-708

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-708, Gary Don Caudill appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. The original jury had recommended an 18-year sentence, but the district court imposed a 35-year sentence and a $2000 fine instead. Caudill argued that this was not fair because the court should not have given him a longer sentence than what the jury recommended. The court agreed with this claim, stating that the state had made a mistake because of a prior legal opinion that was later changed. As a result, Caudill's sentence was modified back to 18 years in prison with the same fine. The decision of the district court was affirmed, but his sentence was changed. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2002-708

MA-2001-117

  • Post author:
  • Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA-2001-117, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of Murder in the First Degree and two counts of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for an extraordinary writ, which means the court decided to stop the prosecution from seeking the death penalty in the retrial. The dissenting opinion noted concerns regarding the outcome of the case based on previous legal interpretations and precedents. The case began with the Petitioner charged in two separate cases, related to tragic events that resulted in the loss of life and armed robbery. Initially, the jury found him guilty of all charges and recommended life sentences without parole for the murders and life imprisonment for the robbery offenses. However, this verdict was reversed, and the case was sent back for separate trials, which created a new legal situation. The Petitioner argued that he should not face the death penalty again because the first jury had already decided on a life sentence, indicating that they did not believe the death penalty should apply. This idea connects to the legal protection known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prevents someone from being tried multiple times for the same offense. The court looked closely at the issue of double jeopardy, discussing how it applies not just to being tried for the same crime, but also regarding the severity of punishment. They acknowledged that once a jury has had a chance to decide on a punishment like the death penalty, the state should not get a second opportunity to change that if the first jury chose not to impose it. As a result, the court found that the Petitioner should not have to go through the additional stress and public scrutiny of another capital sentencing trial when they had already made a clear decision against it previously. Thus, the petition to prohibit the state from seeking the death penalty was granted.

Continue ReadingMA-2001-117