In OCCA case No. F-2013-608, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple robbery and firearm-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but it reversed one conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-703, Heather Ann Jones appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder, Robbery Committed by Two or More Persons, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Robbery but otherwise affirmed the Judgment and Sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. Heather Ann Jones was found guilty after a jury trial in Sequoyah County. The jury sentenced her to fifteen years for Second Degree Murder, five years for Robbery, a fine for Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, and one year in jail for Child Neglect, with all sentences running at the same time. Jones raised several issues on appeal. First, she questioned whether there was enough evidence to support her convictions. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's decisions, as it showed that Jones knew her accomplices intended to commit robbery. Even though initially the victim let them in, it was shown that they used deception to gain entry, which made their actions unlawful. Second, Jones argued that it was wrong for the trial court to allow testimony about her behavior during a TV interview after her daughter was shot. The court found that while the video of the interview was inadmissible, the investigator’s testimony about her demeanor did not count as hearsay and did not unfairly affect the trial. Jones also claimed that statements made by a witness to the police were wrongly admitted, claiming it deprived her of a fair trial. Despite the admission being deemed an error, the court ruled that since the witness testified in court about the same things, the error did not impact the outcome significantly. Jones's objection to some character evidence used against her related to her behavior following her daughter’s shooting was dismissed, as the court believed it directly supported the charge of Child Neglect. She also argued that being convicted for both Robbery and Second Degree Murder was unfairly punishing her twice for the same act. The court agreed, finding that the acts were part of the same crime, so they reversed her conviction for Robbery. In terms of ineffective assistance of counsel, Jones claimed her lawyer should have objected to several pieces of evidence, including the TV interview, police statements, and character evidence. The court ruled that her lawyer's performance did not prejudicially affect the outcome because the decisions were matters of which objections would not have made a difference. Finally, Jones asked for a review of all issues together, hoping that their combined impact on her trial would show that she did not receive a fair trial. However, the court found the errors were not enough to change the outcome. Overall, the court reversed Jones's conviction for Robbery but affirmed the rest of her convictions and sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-619, Carty appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the restitution order. One judge dissented. Carty was found guilty of using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and had to pay $625 in restitution to the victim. Carty thought that the trial court made a mistake when it decided how much he should pay as restitution. He argued that the court did not follow the correct rules when ordering the restitution. The court explained that when a victim suffers financial loss because of a crime, the trial court can order the defendant to pay restitution. However, this amount must be proven with reasonable certainty. This means that the victim needs to provide clear evidence of their financial loss, like how much they spent on medical bills or other costs resulting from the crime. The judges reviewed the records from Carty’s trial. They found that there was no evidence showing how the victim calculated their financial loss, and the victim did not share their losses during the sentencing. Because there was not enough proof provided to establish the victim's economic loss, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake in deciding the restitution amount. The court ultimately upheld Carty's conviction but ordered that the restitution amount be looked at again to ensure it was determined correctly based on the victim’s actual losses.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-327, Claude M. Byrd, III appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery with a firearm, and kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for kidnapping in Count 9 while affirming all other judgments and sentences. One judge dissented. In this case, Byrd was found guilty in a trial without a jury. He had several charges against him, which included conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery, and kidnapping. The court sentenced him to serve five years for conspiracy, fifteen years for robbery (with part of that suspended), and ten years for each kidnapping charge, all to be served at the same time. Byrd argued that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he committed robbery against two people and that he was unjustly punished for multiple kidnapping charges. He claimed that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him and that some evidence used in his trial should not have been allowed. When the court looked at the evidence, they decided that Byrd was involved in the crimes even if he wasn't the one who took the items. His actions during the robbery could hold him responsible for the other crimes that happened afterward, like kidnapping people in the apartment. Regarding his claims of double punishment, the court found that Byrd's actions involved separate victims and crimes that did not violate the law against multiple punishments. However, they agreed that one of his kidnapping charges was too closely related to a robbery charge for Gonzalez, leading to the reversal of that specific conviction. The court concluded Byrd's lawyer did not fail in a significant way that would change the outcome of the trial. They also determined that the trial judge had not made mistakes in allowing certain evidence or in sentencing him. In the end, Byrd lost his appeal for most charges, but the court reversed the kidnapping conviction for one of the victims.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-1039, Earnest Toby Bearshead appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm but reversed his conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Bearshead was found guilty of two crimes: Robbery with a Firearm and False Personation. The jury decided he should go to prison for nine years for the robbery and five years for the false personation. The sentences would be served one after the other. Bearshead did not argue against the robbery conviction but did challenge the false personation conviction based on three main issues. First, Bearshead claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed false personation. The law says that to be guilty of false personation, a person has to pretend to be someone else and do something that could cause that person to face legal issues or gain some benefit. Bearshead argued that since a video of him talking to the police was not officially accepted as evidence, he could not be said to have assumed another person's identity. Despite this claim, the court found that Bearshead had indeed provided evidence of using a false name when talking to the police. A detective testified that Bearshead initially said his name was “Oscar” and later corrected it to “Toby.” The detective had noted this on a form, showing that Bearshead tried to lie about his identity. The second point Bearshead raised was that even if he did use a false name, he did not do anything to get someone else in trouble, as there were no legal issues connected to the name Oscar Bearshead. The State argued he would have benefitted in some way, such as avoiding responsibility for the robbery. However, there was no evidence that showed Bearshead actually gained anything from pretending to be Oscar. He still faced the charges and was found guilty of the robbery. The court pointed out that Bearshead's jury was not instructed about the possibility of benefiting from using a false name, which was necessary for proving false personation in this case. Without clear evidence that he gained any benefits from the impersonation, the court decided the State did not meet the burden of proving all parts of the crime. As a result, the court reversed Bearshead's conviction for False Personation and ordered it to be dismissed. However, his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm stood, and he would still serve the sentence related to that crime. The decision led to one judge expressing a different opinion from the others.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-1126, Kevon Andra McLaren appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm, among other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse one of the counts of kidnapping while affirming the other convictions. One judge dissented. In the case, McLaren was found guilty of several serious crimes, including robbery, kidnapping, and shooting with intent to kill. The court focused on multiple offenses he committed against several people, determining that some of the convictions did not violate laws against double punishment because they were for different acts against different victims. However, they found one of the kidnapping charges was too similar to a robbery charge; thus, they reversed that particular conviction. Additionally, McLaren challenged the trial court’s decision to order restitution, claiming it did not follow proper procedures. However, the court ruled that he did not raise this issue correctly and that there was enough evidence to support the restitution ordered for the victims. Overall, while the court reversed one conviction, most of McLaren's convictions and sentences were upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-721, Deshaunte Devon Coulter appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Coulter's conviction and sentence but vacated the restitution order, directing a new determination of the victim’s loss. One judge dissented. Coulter was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison, along with an order to pay $2,300 in restitution. He raised several issues on appeal, including claims of unfair trial due to the admission of other crimes evidence, DNA evidence issues, prosecutorial misconduct, and excessive sentencing. The court looked closely at each of Coulter’s arguments. For the first claim about other crimes evidence, the court found there was no actual error because the officers’ testimonies did not specifically reference other crimes involving Coulter. Since Coulter did not challenge this during the trial, he could only appeal on the grounds of plain error, which the court ruled did not occur. In the second argument about DNA evidence, the court noted that Coulter had not shown that the State had erred. The evidence was timely provided, and the court did not find a Brady violation regarding the lack of lab notes since Coulter did not request them in time. For the third claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found that there was no actual error. The prosecutor’s comments during the trial were not improper, and thus did not violate Coulter's rights. In the fourth argument, regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court concluded that the sentence fell within the legal limit and was not shockingly inappropriate under the circumstances. In the fifth claim, which concerned the assessment of restitution, the court found that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. The evidence presented at the sentencing didn’t adequately prove the victim's financial losses, so the restitution order was vacated. Finally, Coulter claimed that the cumulative effect of all errors deprived him of a fair trial, but the court found that wasn't the case. The decision affirmed Coulter's conviction and sentence while remanding the restitution matter for proper evaluation.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-167, Bryan Decheveria Aragon appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit a felony, burglary in the first degree, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of Aragon's convictions but reversed others. One judge dissented. Aragon was found guilty of several serious charges, including robbery, assault, and kidnapping, after a jury trial in the District Court of Cleveland County. The jury handed down various sentences, adding up to a long term in prison. Aragon argued that errors occurred during his trial, including the prosecution calling co-defendants who refused to testify, which he claimed violated his rights. He also pointed out concerns about the prosecutor’s conduct and whether he faced multiple punishments for the same criminal act. The court found that the prosecutor’s decision to call the co-defendants did not require a reversal. Even though the co-defendants didn’t answer every question, they provided some responses and were available for cross-examination. Therefore, this did not infringe upon Aragon’s rights. The court also ruled that any claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct did not significantly impact Aragon's fair trial. However, the court acknowledged that Aragon’s conviction for possessing a firearm during a felony had to be dismissed, as it did not comply with legal standards. The kidnapping charge was also reversed because it arose from the same act as the robbery, which meant that it violated rules against double punishment. On the other hand, the charges for robbery and assault were allowed to stand since they were considered separate actions. In summary, the decision affirmed most of the judgment and sentences but reversed those related to kidnapping and possession of a firearm.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-686, Joseph Dewayne Conner appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal regarding the robbery conviction, but granted it concerning the burglary conviction. The court found that Conner had been misinformed about the possible sentence for burglary, which affected his decision to plead guilty. Although Conner’s actual sentence was within the correct range, the incorrect information he received could have influenced his plea. #n dissented on the decision regarding the robbery conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-473, Joseph Randal Arndt appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that Arndt's right to cross-examine his co-defendant was denied, which required a reversal of his conviction and a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Arndt, his co-defendant, and another man who planned to buy marijuana from a person named Ouni. Instead of a legal transaction, things turned violent when Arndt's accomplice pulled a gun and shot Ouni when he thought he was cheated. Arndt was in the car during this event and was accused of participating in the robbery. During the trial, Arndt argued that he should have been allowed to question his co-defendant about important details that could affect his case. These details included accusations that Arndt had a shotgun and was told to push Ouni out of the vehicle. Arndt's lawyer objected when this information was presented during the trial, but the judge denied the request to cross-examine the co-defendant. Arndt maintained that both he and the co-defendant claimed to have no knowledge of any robbery plan. When the co-defendant testified against Arndt, the court should have allowed Arndt to cross-examine him. The court found that the judge's failure to do so was a serious error that harmed Arndt's rights. In conclusion, the decision emphasized that when someone testifies against you in court, you have the right to question them. Since Arndt was not given this opportunity, the court decided that he deserves a new trial where he can fully defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-407, Kevin Maurice Brown appealed his conviction for multiple counts of robbery and firearm possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on all counts except for one count of possession of a firearm, which was reversed. One judge dissented. Kevin Brown was found guilty of robbing several businesses in Tulsa, using a firearm during these crimes. The jury decided on severe punishment, including life imprisonment and hefty fines. The trial also took note of Brown's previous felonies, which influenced the decisions. During the case, issues arose regarding double punishment for two counts of firearm possession that were related to the same gun. Brown’s defense argued that charging him with both counts violated the principle against double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being punished multiple times for the same crime. The court agreed that the evidence showed he was being punished twice for the same offense, which is not allowed, and reversed the conviction for one of those counts. Brown also felt he didn’t receive good legal help during his trial because his lawyer didn’t challenge the double counting of the firearm charges. However, since one count was reversed, this concern was considered resolved. Additionally, Brown thought his sentences were too harsh, especially since no one was hurt in the robberies. The court stated that while the sentences were serious, they were within the law, and given his past convictions, they did not seem extreme or unjust. Brown submitted additional concerns in a separate brief, but these were not accepted because they did not follow required guidelines. As a result, the court denied those arguments. In summary, while Brown's convictions for robbery and firearms were mostly upheld, one of the firearm possession counts was overturned due to improper double punishment. The court found no errors significant enough to change his overall sentence, which reflected the severity of the crimes committed.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-656, Jason Kenneth Dimaggio, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including robbery and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one conviction but affirmed all others. One judge dissented. Jason Dimaggio was found guilty of several offenses that occurred during a violent crime spree in two Oklahoma counties. His crimes included robbery with a weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other charges. He received lengthy sentences, with some of them being consecutive, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, Dimaggio argued that he didn't get a fair trial for several reasons. He claimed that some evidence about other crimes should not have been allowed, and that he was denied the chance to confront witnesses due to hearsay evidence. His main points included: 1. Other-crimes evidence was presented improperly. 2. Hearsay evidence was used against him. 3. The trial court allowed irrelevant photographs of him to be shown to the jurors. 4. There was misconduct by the prosecutor. 5. The jury was incorrectly instructed about his flight after crimes. 6. The combined effect of errors denied him a fair trial. 7. The court should not have ordered his sentences to be served consecutively. 8. He was unfairly punished multiple times for the same conduct. 9. The evidence did not support some of his convictions. The court reviewed all these claims and found that the evidence about earlier crimes was acceptable as part of the overall story of the events. Although there were issues with some evidence, like the photographs, the judges felt the impact on the trial was not significant enough to change the outcome because there was strong evidence against Dimaggio from witnesses. Regarding the prosecutor’s comments during the trial, the court noted that errors weren’t severe enough to matter because they were not objected to at the time. They also agreed that the jury's instruction about flight wasn't appropriate, but again, it didn't affect the strong evidence of guilt. Dimaggio’s claims of double jeopardy (being punished twice for the same crime) regarding his convictions for assault and fleeing from a police officer were not supported. The court ruled that the crimes were separate and had different elements. However, the court did agree that he should not be convicted for possession of a controlled substance because it was part of the robbery and should not have been counted as a separate crime. Thus, that conviction was reversed. In conclusion, except for the reversed conviction, the court upheld Dimaggio's multiple sentences and affirmed the trial court’s decisions in all other respects.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1179, Donnell Devon Smith appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including robbery, sexual battery, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with various offenses in multiple cases and pleaded guilty to all charges on October 19, 2010. He received several sentences, some of which were life sentences, and others ranged from ten to twenty years. After entering his pleas, Smith requested to withdraw them, saying he felt coerced and that he had not been properly informed about the punishments he faced for his crimes. The court looked at three main points raised in Smith's appeal: 1. Smith argued he should be allowed to withdraw his plea for one count of attempted robbery because the ten-year sentence he received was too long. The court found that his sentence was actually five years too long and modified it to the correct five-year maximum. 2. Smith claimed he did not understand the range of sentences for some charges and that this lack of understanding meant his pleas were not voluntary. The court decided that while he had been misadvised, the pleas still appeared to be valid overall because he benefitted from how the sentences were set up to run concurrently. 3. He asserted that he was punished twice for some of the same actions and that some of his pleas lacked enough factual support. The court concluded that the evidence supported the different charges, and there were no double jeopardy issues. The court ultimately affirmed his convictions for all cases besides modifying the sentence that was too long and correcting a minor paperwork mistake regarding how sentences should run together. The court ruled that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily made despite the confusion around sentencing ranges. The decision closed by affirming the ruling of the lower court regarding Smith's attempt to withdraw his pleas, confirming most of the sentences while adjusting the one that exceeded the maximum allowed by law.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1066, Rodney Dennis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirteen years to eight years imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1041, David Roland Boschee appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one related to possession of a firearm after a felony. One judge dissented from the decision. Boschee was found guilty after a jury trial for several offenses, including robbery with a firearm. The court sentenced him to a total of 25 years in prison for his serious crimes. Boschee raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the fairness of his trial and the legitimacy of the multiple charges against him. Firstly, he argued that it was unfair to force him to defend against two robbery charges in one trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in joining these cases, meaning they decided it was reasonable to have them heard together. Secondly, Boschee contended that his convictions for both robbery and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number were against the law because they represented double punishment for the same act. However, the court disagreed, stating these were separate offenses and did not violate any statutes. Thirdly, Boschee argued that he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of possessing a firearm after a felony. The court agreed that there was not enough evidence to support two convictions and decided to dismiss one of these counts. The court also found that his argument about receiving ineffective assistance from his lawyer was without merit, concluding that his rights were not violated in this regard. In summary, the court upheld most of Boschee's convictions but agreed that one count of possession should be dismissed. The judges had different opinions, with one judge dissenting, stating that the joining of the robbery charges may have harmed Boschee’s case.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-526, Chavis Lenard Day appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. Chavis Lenard Day was found guilty by a jury for two crimes: shooting someone with the intention to kill and attempting to rob that person using a dangerous weapon. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison for both crimes, but these sentences would happen at the same time, not one after the other. During his appeal, Day raised several concerns about his trial. First, he argued that he should not be punished separately for both crimes because it might violate rules against double jeopardy, which means being tried for the same crime twice. However, the court found that it was okay to punish him for both offenses. Day also questioned if the person who identified him as the shooter was telling the truth. The court looked at the evidence and determined that the jury was allowed to trust this witness's testimony, even if it was challenged during the trial. Another issue Day raised was about the advice given to the jury. He claimed the judge didn’t give certain instructions, like reminding them that eyewitnesses can make mistakes. The court decided that these instructions were not necessary and that the trial was fair. Day also thought a witness should not have talked about changing a photo used in the trial because it could confuse the jury. The court explained that mentioning this did not mean Day had done something wrong or had been involved with gangs. Additionally, Day argued that the jury should have been told about how long he would have to serve in prison before being eligible for parole. However, the court found that the law did not require that information for his specific charge. Finally, Day pointed out that a mistake was made in official documents. They stated he was guilty of robbery when he was actually guilty of attempted robbery. The court agreed and said they would fix this error in the official records. In conclusion, the court affirmed Day's punishment but ordered that the documents reflect the correct details of the conviction. Overall, the court found that none of Day's complaints were enough to change the outcome of the trial except for the clerical correction.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-767, Walter Roundtree appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, first-degree rape, and forcible sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to run concurrently. One member of the court dissented. Walter Roundtree was charged with committing serious crimes, including robbery and rape. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and received various sentences that totaled quite a bit of time in prison. All of his sentences were set to run one after the other, which means he would have to serve them one at a time. Roundtree argued that the judge should have considered allowing his sentences to run at the same time instead. The law allows judges to decide whether sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively. However, the judge in this case had a rule that if someone chose a jury trial and lost, all their sentences would go one after the other. This policy was seen as potentially wrong because it might discourage people from exercising their right to have a jury trial. The court looked closely at this situation and decided that the judge had indeed abused his discretion by not even considering the option of concurrent sentences. Because of this, Roundtree's sentences were changed so that he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court also discussed some other issues Roundtree raised, such as not getting credit for the time he spent in jail waiting for his trial and the $500 fine that was added to one of his sentences. The court found that the trial didn't violate his rights in these areas, so they upheld the trial's decision regarding those matters. In the end, the court confirmed the conviction but made changes to the way the sentences were to be served, allowing them to be concurrent instead of consecutive.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-1110, Andrew Deon Bowie appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for certiorari and remand the case for the appointment of new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Andrew Deon Bowie was charged with robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary. After a preliminary hearing, he agreed to a plea deal and pleaded guilty to robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison for the robbery and twenty years for burglary, with the sentences running at the same time. Bowie later wanted to challenge his guilty pleas. He argued that he did not have good legal help when he tried to withdraw his guilty pleas because his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which made it hard for Bowie to get proper representation. The law says that people in criminal cases should have effective lawyers who don’t have conflicts that could hurt their case. The court looked at Bowie’s request and agreed that he did not have proper legal help. They found that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer to help with his request to withdraw his pleas, as he was left without anyone to represent him. Because of this, the court said they would let his petition go forward. The decision found that Bowie’s lawyer had acted against his interests by suggesting that Bowie shouldn’t be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. This created a conflict which made Bowie unable to defend himself properly. As a result of their findings, the court granted Bowie’s request and sent the case back to the lower court. They instructed the lower court to appoint a new lawyer to help Bowie with his effort to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge disagreed with this decision, saying that Bowie did not bring up the issue of bad legal help earlier in the process, so it should not be considered now. The dissenting judge felt there was not enough evidence to support Bowie’s claims about needing to withdraw his pleas. Overall, the case was about making sure that Bowie had the right legal support, and the court decided that he didn’t have that, which affected his ability to have a fair process in court.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-780, Roy Carl Bales, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bales's conviction for robbery but modified his sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle to three years in prison. One judge dissented. Bales was found guilty by a jury of committing robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The jury decided that he should serve twenty years for robbery and six years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running one after the other. Bales raised two main points in his appeal. The first point was about how the trial court instructed the jury on the minimum sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Bales argued that the court made a mistake by not giving the jury the correct information on the punishment range. The second point was that the trial court should have made Bales's sentences run at the same time instead of back-to-back, which he thought was too harsh. After looking carefully at the details of the case, the court found a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the sentence. They decided that the minimum sentence for unauthorized use should be three years instead of six years. However, the court thought that the long sentence for robbery was appropriate given Bales's past criminal record, so they kept that sentence as it was. Ultimately, the court affirmed the robbery conviction and changed the unauthorized vehicle use sentence to three years in prison, making one judge disagree with the decision.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-863, the appellant appealed his conviction for several counts of burglary and for knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the order of the District Court regarding the appellant's sentences, making them run concurrently as originally ordered instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-252, Charles Earl Lindsay appealed his conviction for robbery with an imitation firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Lindsay was tried in Cleveland County and found guilty of robbery with an imitation firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 40 years in prison. Lindsay did not agree with this decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove he committed robbery using an imitation firearm. The court agreed that while the state proved most parts of the robbery, they did not prove that Lindsay threatened the victim with the imitation firearm since she never actually saw it during the crime. Because of this, the court thought it was fair to change his conviction to first-degree robbery, saying he unnecessarily hurt the victim and scared her. Lindsay also argued that the prosecution had made mistakes during the trial, including allowing a police officer to testify about the victim identifying him. Although the court noted this was not a good practice, they felt it did not change the outcome of the trial since Lindsay’s attorney had challenged the identification in other ways. Another point Lindsay raised was that his lawyer did not help him properly. The court decided that the lawyer’s actions did not break any laws protecting his rights, so this argument did not succeed. Lindsay further stated he had an unfair trial because he was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs in front of the jury. The court acknowledged this was an error but said that this alone did not warrant a different outcome. Lindsay’s attorney also did not ask for the jury to consider any lesser charges of robbery, but the court found this was appropriate since Lindsay claimed he was innocent. Regarding closing arguments by the prosecutor, the court found that a fair trial was still upheld. However, the court did recognize there were mistakes regarding Lindsay's sentencing, particularly not informing the jury about some rules related to sentencing. In the end, the court reversed Lindsay's original conviction and instead convicted him of first-degree robbery. They also decided to reduce his sentence to 20 years in prison, taking into account all the discussed errors. The case was sent back to the lower court to correct the judgment and sentence based on these decisions.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1057, Saul Mintz appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that while his conviction was affirmed, his sentence for the second count should be modified to ten years' imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-311, Emily Burns appealed her conviction for robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Emily Burns pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. A judge sentenced her to 25 years in prison for robbery and five years for the other charge, with both sentences running at the same time. Burns later asked to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing her long sentence was unfair. The court looked at how the sentence was decided. They said when someone pleads guilty, the judge must consider all possible punishments. Burns claimed the judge had a policy of giving at least 25 years for armed robbery without looking at her specific case. This concerned the appellate court because it seemed the judge might not have thought about all the facts before sentencing. Burns used a fake gun during the robbery, and no one was really hurt. The court believed that sentencing her to 25 years for using a fake gun in a non-violent way was extreme given her background as a young mother with no prior criminal record. The appellate court decided to change Burns's punishment, reducing her sentence to 10 years in prison because the original sentence was too harsh. They affirmed her convictions but modified the length of her sentence. Burns also argued that she was denied a chance to have her sentence reviewed after a year, which is a right she has by law. However, the court said she was not denied this right because the judge just needed her to file a motion if she wanted a review. In the end, the court granted her request to modify her sentence and reaffirmed her convictions, while one judge believed that the original sentence should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-67, Marrio D'Shane Willis appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Marrio D'Shane Willis was found guilty by a jury for robbing someone while using a gun. Because he had a previous conviction, the court gave him a sentence of ten years in prison and a fine. Willis did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal. Willis claimed that his attorney did not do a good job in representing him during the trial. He said that the only witness who identified him as the robber had made a mistake and that there was evidence to support that claim which was not presented in the trial. Willis asked for another chance, known as a new trial, based on this new information. The appeals court looked into Willis's claims and sent the case back to a lower court to find more information. This lower court had a hearing where they listened to the eyewitness. During this hearing, the eyewitness changed his story and said he was not sure about his identification of Willis during the trial. He even said he thought another person might be the actual robber. The appeals court found that Willis’s attorney did not try hard enough to prove that the eyewitness might have made a mistake. They decided that if the attorney had investigated this more during the trial, it could have led to a different result. They believed Willis was treated unfairly because of his lawyer's mistakes. After reviewing everything, the appeals court reversed Willis's conviction, meaning he would not be found guilty anymore based on the trial's results. They agreed with the findings of the lower court that the eyewitness's changed testimony made it difficult to trust what he had said during the trial. In conclusion, the court said that the way Willis was represented in court was not good enough, and because of that, they decided he should not have been convicted of robbery.