Sentence Modification

F-2002-1561

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1561, Joe Edward Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Dangerous Drug and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the life sentence for the drug charge but modified the sentence for the weapons charge to two years. One judge dissented. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a crime. He was originally sentenced to a long prison term. However, he argued that he did not agree to a key part of his sentencing, which led to a re-sentencing trial being ordered. At this new trial, the jury decided he should have a life sentence for the drug charge and a ten-year sentence for the weapon charge. Stratmoen’s appeal brought up several points. He said the court shouldn’t have let a jury re-sentence him just for this non-death penalty case. He also argued that he never truly agreed to his earlier convictions being used against him before. Stratmoen claimed that testimony from police officers during his trial was unfair and that the way the prosecutor spoke about parole led to a wrong verdict. Lastly, he felt that a life sentence for having drugs was too harsh for his situation. After looking at everything, the court thought that Stratmoen's sentence for possessing a weapon should be reduced to two years since it couldn’t be increased further. They agreed that the trial court was right in letting a jury examine whether he had prior convictions but pointed out that they had to correct some details about his life sentence, making sure it indicated he could be eligible for parole. In conclusion, while his life sentence was upheld, it was important to ensure that the legal documents accurately reflected the possibility of parole, providing him with a fair opportunity for the future.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1561

F-2002-690

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-690, Lonny Boyd Jones appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assaulting a police officer and aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count against him, affirm the others, and reduce his sentence for aggravated trafficking. One judge dissented. Lonny Boyd Jones was tried in Grady County District Court and found guilty of several charges. He received sentences of five years for assaulting a police officer, two years for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, one year with a fine for resisting an officer, and 35 years plus a fine for trafficking methamphetamine. After his conviction, Lonny appealed the decision, arguing many points, including issues with the arrest warrant, double jeopardy, hearsay evidence, and the effectiveness of his counsel. The court reviewed his claims. They found that the arrest warrant was valid despite not being signed properly. Therefore, Lonny's claim regarding the warrant did not hold. They also decided that his conviction for resisting a police officer was too similar to the assault charge, so that conviction was reversed. Regarding the hearsay evidence and jury instructions, the court found that they did not significantly affect the trial's outcome, and his request for instructions on lesser offenses or defenses was denied because the evidence supported his guilt for the charges he faced. Additionally, the court upheld the introduction of a letter he wrote, agreeing that it was authentic. They dismissed claims of prosecutorial misconduct as the comments made during the trial were fair and justified by the evidence. The court acknowledged that the sentencing instructions were mistaken and modified his sentence for trafficking methamphetamine, reducing it from 35 years to 30 years without a fine. In the end, the court's decision affirmed most of Lonny's convictions, changed one, and modified his sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2002-690

F-2002-653

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-653, Carole Jean Arnold appealed her conviction for Driving While Under the Influence and Driving While License is Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Carole Jean Arnold was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Payne County. The jury decided she should spend five years in prison and pay a $500 fine for driving while under the influence. For driving with a suspended license, the jury decided on one year in prison and another $500 fine. The trial judge ruled that the fines would be suspended, but Carole didn't agree with the conviction. In their review, the court looked at several issues that Carole raised. First, she argued that there was not enough evidence to prove she was intoxicated when she was driving. However, the court found that the evidence was strong enough. There were officers who testified that they smelled alcohol on her breath, noticed her speech was slurred, her eyes were bloodshot, and that she was having trouble standing up. Carole admitted to drinking alcohol before driving, which supported the jury's conclusion. Second, Carole claimed the trial court made a mistake by not correctly telling the jury about possible punishments. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the jury should have been aware of more options regarding punishment. Since the defense attorney did not object during the trial, it was still considered a major error that needed to be corrected. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carole's prison sentence to two years instead of the longer one originally given. The third issue Carole had was about a test called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which was used to check her level of intoxication. The court agreed that there were rules about when scientific evidence can be used at trials, and those rules were not followed when this test's results were allowed. However, the court also decided that this error was not serious enough to have changed the jury's decision, so it didn’t matter much in the end. Lastly, Carole felt her overall punishment was too harsh. Because the court already changed the length of her sentence due to the earlier mistake, they found that they did not need to make any other changes. In the end, the court upheld Carole's conviction but changed her sentence to two years in prison. One judge disagreed with modifying her sentence, believing the jury's maximum sentence was appropriate and that the results of the test were acceptable in court.

Continue ReadingF-2002-653

F-2002-470

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-470, Dearel Oglesby appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence to 20 years in prison with a $20,000 fine. One judge dissented. Dearel Oglesby was found guilty by a jury of selling methamphetamine. He was sentenced to life in prison, which he believed was too harsh. Oglesby raised four main issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial allowed some evidence that should not have been included according to the state’s rules. The court found that even though one lab report was late, it was not a major issue since it didn't harm Oglesby’s case. Second, Oglesby argued that he did not get his right to a preliminary hearing, but the court found there was enough evidence to prove there might have been a crime. Third, he was concerned that the jury saw evidence about other drug sales he allegedly made, which he thought was unfair. The court noted that while some of this evidence was not really necessary, the prosecutor did not act on it inappropriately. Finally, Oglesby spoke about a witness being added during the trial, but the court felt that was handled correctly since it wasn’t a key part of the case. The judges found that Oglesby’s punishment was extreme considering the small amount of drugs involved, so they decided to reduce his sentence instead of just keeping the life sentence. This decision was met with some disagreement from one judge, who thought the evidence was relevant and that the original sentence should stay as is.

Continue ReadingF-2002-470

F-2001-1445

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1445, John Wesley Dickson appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, After Former Conviction of a Felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court but modified his sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. John Wesley Dickson was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs after he had been convicted of a crime before. The jury decided that he should go to prison for forty years. Dickson thought this was too harsh and took his case to a higher court for a review. The higher court looked at all the evidence, including what happened in the original trial. The judges found that while the forty-year sentence was lawful, the remarks made by the prosecutor during the sentencing could have influenced the jury too much. The prosecutor's comments on what they thought was an appropriate punishment were seen as quite problematic. The court believed that the sentence given shocked their sense of fairness, which is a key reason for modifying sentences. Despite being allowed to recommend sentences, the prosecutor should have kept personal views out of their statements to avoid bias in the jury's decisions. Finally, the court decided to change the sentence from forty years to twenty years. They pointed out that the rules at the time of the crime did not allow applying changes in law retroactively to make the punishment lighter. Thus, only the laws that were in place when Dickson committed the crime could be applied to him. In conclusion, the court confirmed Dickson’s conviction but found the original sentence too severe, leading to a new sentence of twenty years in prison. One judge disagreed with the change in sentence, feeling that the jury's and prosecutor’s actions were acceptable.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1445

C-2002-652

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-652, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Second Degree Burglary, First Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, Larceny of an Automobile, and Robbery with a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal in part by modifying some of his sentences. However, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences for the other offenses. One judge dissented from the decision.

Continue ReadingC-2002-652

RE-2000-1429

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1429, Walker John Myers appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that the district court clarify the order. One judge dissented. Myers had originally received a sentence of one year in jail for each of the charges, with some time suspended. After an investigation, the court found he had violated the terms of his probation. The appeal focused on whether there was enough evidence for this decision, and on the clarity of the revocation order. The court found that Myers had previously admitted to violating his probation, which meant that the revocation was supported by evidence. However, it also noted that the order was unclear about how much of his remaining sentence was actually being revoked, leading to the requirement for a clearer explanation from the district court.

Continue ReadingRE-2000-1429

F-2001-10

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-10, Todd O'Shay Coburn appealed his conviction for Shooting With Intent to Kill and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court but modified the sentences to thirty-five years on each count to be served consecutively. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2001-10

F-2000-897

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-897, Jack Albert Lowe appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Rape in the First Degree by Instrumentation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Lowe's conviction from Rape by Instrumentation to Lewd Molestation because the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the required element of penetration. The court also modified his sentence to life imprisonment for the lewd molestation, which would be served consecutively with a twenty-year sentence for First Degree Burglary. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2000-897