Sentencing Error Archives

F-2018-12

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-12, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree rape by instrumentation and misdemeanor assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the rape conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Daniel Bryan Kelley, who was initially sentenced to twenty years for rape following a jury trial. He appealed that decision, and the Court agreed that there had been a mistake involving the use of a past out-of-state conviction for sentence enhancement. They sent the case back for a new sentencing trial. The second trial resulted in a life sentence. Kelley argued that he had ineffective assistance from his appellate lawyer because he was not informed about the risks of a longer sentence should he win the appeal. However, the court found no clear evidence that he would have chosen to do anything differently had he been fully informed beforehand. Kelley also wanted the court to limit his new sentence to twenty years, but the court explained that upon retrial or resentencing, the complete range of punishment is available. Therefore, they refused his request to cap the current sentence. Finally, Kelley claimed that the life sentence was excessive. The court considered the nature of his crime and his history, stating that the sentence was within the legal limit and justified based on the circumstances of the case. As a result, the court concluded that his life sentence did not shock the conscience and upheld the previous decisions regarding his case.

F-2017-1142

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1142, Daniel Ryan Chadwell appealed his conviction for forty counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under 16. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Chadwell's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Chadwell was found guilty by a jury of many serious offenses. He was accused of committing inappropriate acts with children who were under the age of 16. The jury decided he should spend a very long time in prison, giving him a total of several hundred years in sentences. He did not get found guilty on two of the counts. Chadwell's appeal included two main arguments. First, he claimed the jury received wrong instructions about how to decide his punishment. Specifically, he argued that the instructions mentioned the punishment for crimes against children under 12, which was not applicable to his case since he was charged with acts involving children under 16. The court found that while the instructions did have an error, the mistake was not serious enough to change the outcome. They noted that all the child victims were proven to be under 12 at the time of the crimes, so the error was harmless. Second, Chadwell argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, which made it impossible for him to have a fair chance. However, the court looked at what happened during the entire trial and found that these actions did not make the trial unfair either. In the end, the court decided that Chadwell's appeal did not provide enough reason to change the original decision. Therefore, his sentences remained as decided by the jury.

F-2015-715

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-715, Kevin Judd Lemons appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to seventeen years in prison and reduce his fine to $10,000.00. One judge dissented regarding how the sentence was amended. The case began with Lemons being charged for drug trafficking and related offenses. During the trial, he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and fined $25,000. He argued several points in his appeal, including that the search of his vehicle was illegal, and the evidence against him was insufficient. He also claimed that he received an excessive sentence and that his defense attorney did not represent him well. The court reviewed these arguments carefully. On the first point, the court found that the police did not act improperly during the traffic stop which led to the discovery of drugs and paraphernalia. The court explained that the officers were following the law during the search. Regarding the second point, the court noted that Lemons himself had admitted to his prior felony convictions, which relieved the State from having to further prove these convictions. This meant his claims about insufficient evidence for his previous felonies were not valid for the appeal. For the claim about his sentence being too harsh, the court agreed that Lemons had been sentenced incorrectly under the wrong punishment range. They adjusted the duration of his prison time downward to correct this mistake. They also ruled that the fine imposed was not appropriate under the law, which allowed them to reduce it to a lower amount. Lastly, Lemons contended that his lawyer failed to support him effectively. The court found that most of the points mentioned did not show a serious problem with the representation that would warrant further action. Overall, the court upheld Lemons' conviction but decided to make changes to both his prison time and the fine he had to pay. While most judges agreed, one judge thought that rather than changing the sentence directly, the case should be sent back for a new sentencing hearing.

C-2014-373

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 10, 2014
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.

F-2007-543

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 22, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-543, Sean Ray Smith appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from 100 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, opposing the modification and suggesting the case should be sent back for resentencing with proper jury instructions. Sean Ray Smith was found guilty of a serious crime after a jury trial. The jury's verdict led to a very long sentence of 100 years. Smith said there were three mistakes made during the trial. These mistakes included the judge and prosecutor calling the victim a victim, which he argued took away his rights, incorrect information given to the jury about sentencing, and that the 100-year sentence was too harsh. Upon reviewing the case and the evidence presented, the court agreed that one of Smith's claims about the jury instructions was valid. The jury received the wrong instruction regarding how long he would have to serve in prison before being considered for parole. The jurors were confused and asked how many years make up a life sentence, which increased concerns about how they understood the law related to his sentence. The court decided that while there were indeed errors, Smith would not get a new trial. Instead, it reduced his sentence to 45 years, which was deemed more appropriate given the circumstances, including Smith's history and the nature of the crime. The decision made by the court was to uphold the conviction but change the sentence to a lesser punishment. One judge disagreed with this change, believing that the jury should properly decide the length of the sentence without this modification. The strategy suggested by the dissenting judge was to keep the conviction and have the case sent back for proper sentencing instructions.

F-2006-905

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 10, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-905, Curtis Dale Gibson appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of Two Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of conviction but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gibson was tried by a jury in Jackson County and found guilty of raping a victim. The jury sentenced him to thirty years in prison. Gibson raised several issues in his appeal, including whether he received a fair trial, due to certain evidence being allowed and comments made by the prosecutor. He also argued that he should have received an instruction about parole eligibility and that his prior suspended sentence for another crime should not have been discussed during the trial. The court looked at each point raised by Gibson. It found that the statements from the victim's sister, which claimed she had also been a victim of Gibson, were not hearsay and were admitted correctly. The prosecutor's comments during the trial were not seen as causing enough harm to reverse the decision. However, the court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule regarding when Gibson could be eligible for parole, which was considered a mistake. As a result, the court affirmed Gibson's guilty verdict but changed his sentence, ordering that he be resentenced on account of this issue. The judges involved reached various conclusions, with one judge expressing disagreement with the decision to remand for resentencing.

F-2007-1162

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-1162, Leroy White Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including trafficking in illegal drugs, failure to obtain a drug stamp, assault and battery on a police officer, unlawful possession of paraphernalia, aggravated assault, attempting to destroy evidence, and threatening a violent act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm White’s convictions and sentences for the most part while vacating some fines. The court carefully reviewed the arguments White made on appeal. He claimed that his rights were violated when police entered his hotel room without a warrant, that he was wrongly punished multiple times for the same actions, and that he did not receive proper jury instructions regarding fines. The court determined that the police had a good reason for entering the hotel room because they smelled marijuana and were responding to a situation where evidence might be destroyed. This justified the warrantless search. White also argued that being convicted for trafficking drugs and failing to obtain a tax stamp should not both lead to punishment. However, the court explained that the law allowed for separate punishments in this case since the two charges were different and required different evidence. Regarding the fines, the court noted that the trial judge had imposed fines without properly instructing the jury on what fines to recommend. The court agreed this was an error, so they decided to vacate these fines but upheld the minimum fine for the trafficking charge. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences given to White, confirming that while some fines were removed, the convictions remained. The judges involved in the decision agreed on most points but noted some concurrence in the results. In conclusion, White's appeal was mostly denied, but some corrections were made regarding the imposed fines.

F-2006-896

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 19, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-896, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree arson, assault and battery domestic abuse, assault and battery, and public intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments and sentences for counts I and II but modified the sentences for counts III and IV by vacating the fines imposed on those counts. One judge dissented. Michael Wayne Schulze was found guilty of starting a fire, which was labeled as first-degree arson, along with committing several misdemeanors related to domestic abuse and public intoxication. The jury recommended lengthy prison time and fines for these actions. Schulze argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt for arson. He also claimed that the instructions given to the jury were misleading regarding his possible sentences and fines. He sought modifications to the imposed fines and sentences, while also asserting that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the trial. The court examined the arguments and determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt for arson. They agreed that the jury was wrongly instructed about potential sentencing for certain charges, which warranted relief by adjusting the fines for the misdemeanor counts. However, they maintained the convictions and sentences for the arson and domestic abuse counts, deciding that the errors in jury instructions did not severely impact the outcome of the case. Overall, the court upheld the majority of the original decisions but aimed to correct parts of the sentencing that were found to be incorrect, ensuring justice was served.

F-2005-718

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 24, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-718, Sylvia Coronado Frias appealed her conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine and Maintaining a Vehicle Used for a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction on both counts but instructed the district court to correct her sentence to match the jury's recommendation. One judge dissented. Frias was found guilty by a jury and received a 20-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine for Trafficking Methamphetamine, along with a five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for the other charge. However, the judge sentenced her to 25 years without fully explaining why he deviated from the jury's recommendation. The court examined several issues from Frias's appeal, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence, if juror misconduct occurred, whether Frias had effective legal help, and if the jury was properly instructed regarding her sentence. 1. The court found that admitting the videotape of Frias and another person was done correctly since it was relevant evidence and didn't unfairly hurt her case. 2. The court could not consider claims related to juror misconduct because Frias didn't properly submit evidence to support her statements about it. 3. Frias's claim that her counsel was ineffective also failed because she didn't follow the rules to request further hearings to develop evidence for that claim. 4. The court stated that the trial court was not required to tell the jury about specific sentence limitations concerning trafficking cases. Finally, the court decided that while they agreed with much of the trial court’s findings, the sentence for trafficking had to be corrected to align with the jury's earlier decision of 20 years. The fine would also need to be reviewed.

F-2005-110

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-110, Marvin Royston White appealed his conviction for three counts of first degree manslaughter due to driving under the influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Marvin Royston White was found guilty by a jury for causing the deaths of three people while driving after consuming alcohol. The jury set him to serve twenty years for each count, making a total of sixty years in prison. White argued that he did not intentionally drink alcohol that day because he took cold medicine which he didn't know contained alcohol. White claimed that his attorney did not help him properly at trial by not asserting certain defenses, including involuntary intoxication. He mentioned that his attorney didn’t ask for a jury instruction on this defense, simply arguing that he was not guilty due to sleep apnea causing him to fall asleep while driving. The court considered whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on involuntary intoxication since White's defense was that he unknowingly consumed alcohol. The court felt this was important as it could have changed the jury's decision if they understood that his intoxication was not voluntary. Since the lower court did not give that instruction, the OCCA found it to be a major mistake that could have impacted the verdict significantly. Therefore, they decided to reverse White's conviction and ordered a new trial to give him a fair chance to present his defense properly. The dissenting judge believed that the evidence did not support the need for that jury instruction on involuntary intoxication, arguing that White was responsible for his actions and knowingly drove under the influence. Ultimately, White’s appeal was granted, allowing him a chance for a new trial to properly address his defense.

F-2001-1372

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 10, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1372, #Welch appealed his conviction for #First Degree Burglary and Peeping Tom. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but vacate the fine imposed. #No one dissented. Tony Wayne Welch was found guilty of breaking and entering a building and also for being a Peeping Tom. The court sentenced him to thirty years in prison for burglary and one year in jail for the Peeping Tom charge, which would be served at the same time. Welch challenged several things about his trial. First, he said the jury should have been told they could consider a lesser charge of breaking and entering, but the court said that was not appropriate. Then, he argued that the prosecution misled the jury, but the court disagreed, stating that the prosecution's remarks did not unfairly influence the jury. Welch also claimed his lawyer did not represent him well, but the court found no evidence that this hurt his case. The court did determine, however, that there was a mistake in how the punishment for Peeping Tom was explained to the jury, which was considered a serious error. Since Welch had already served his jail time since the trial, there wasn’t much that could be done about it. The court decided to take away the $500 fine from the Peeping Tom charge. Lastly, the court found that it was not required to inform the jury about how much time Welch would have to serve before he could be released on parole. They decided that his overall sentence was fair, and nothing about the trial significantly harmed his chances for a fair outcome. In the end, the court upheld the verdict of the jury but removed the fine, stating that despite some issues during the trial, they did not impact the fairness of his conviction.

F-2000-880

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-880, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the appellant's sentence from ten years to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented, stating that the error did not amount to plain error and that he would not modify the sentence.