In OCCA case No. M 2010-1026, Luck appealed his conviction for Malicious Mischief. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order, remanding the matter for a hearing to determine the correct amount of restitution. No dissent was registered.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-1033, the petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of permitting child abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for the writ of certiorari, allowing the petitioner to withdraw his plea of no contest. One judge dissented. The petitioner, Huyen Cleveland Tran, was charged in 2004, with permitting child abuse in Oklahoma County. In May 2007, the petitioner entered a no contest plea and received a deferred sentence, which means she wouldn’t have to go to prison right away if she followed certain rules. However, in 2009, the State asked the court to speed up her sentence, and the court decided she should serve five years in prison. Tran then wanted to take back her plea of no contest because she believed she didn’t fully understand it and thought she had a valid defense. She raised several issues in her appeal, including that she did not have effective legal help because her attorney represented both her and her husband, who was also charged. This was seen as a conflict of interest. The court agreed with Tran that her attorney had a conflict because he could not fully defend her without hurting her husband’s case. Since this conflict affected her legal representation, the court granted her request to withdraw her plea. The ruling means that Tran can now have a new chance to argue her case without the problems that came from the conflict of interest with her previous lawyer. One judge felt that rather than allowing Tran to withdraw her plea completely, the case should be sent back for a proper hearing with a new lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-1019 and RE-2009-1020, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the full revocation of his seven-year suspended sentences to a three-year revocation with four years remaining suspended. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who had previously pleaded guilty to multiple drug charges and received a suspended sentence. Later, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes. The judge found enough evidence to revoke his entire suspended sentence, which the appellant contested. The appellant argued that a small amount of marijuana found in a car he was driving was not enough to prove he controlled it because it was not his car. He also claimed that revoking his entire sentence was too harsh and should be changed. However, the court upheld the judge's finding that the appellant indeed had control over the marijuana since he was driving the car alone and had acknowledged ownership of the drug paraphernalia in the car. The court found merit in the appellant's argument about the harshness of the punishment because the reasons for revoking the full sentence were incorrect. The judge had based his decision on prior allegations that didn't hold up to factual scrutiny during the revocation hearing. The violations were also deemed minor and were not even prosecuted. In the end, the court decided to cut the original seven-year full revocation down to three years while keeping four years suspended, demonstrating that the punishment still reflected the violations but was fairer given the circumstances.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-774, John Calvin Winrow, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug With Intent to Distribute (Cocaine) and Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Winrow's convictions but remand the case to the district court for a ruling on whether his sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. One judge dissented regarding the remand for sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-535, Joseph Lander Smith appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Smith's sentence from twenty-five years to seventeen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Joseph Lander Smith was found guilty by a jury for distributing a controlled substance after he had a previous felony conviction. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, which the judge agreed to, making it run consecutively with another sentence he was already serving. Smith raised several arguments in his appeal. He first claimed that he didn't get a fair trial because the prosecutor didn’t share important information that could have helped his case. The information was about a witness who helped the state. This witness had her own past troubles with the law but the jury was not told about them. Smith argued that this was wrong because it might have changed how the jury viewed that witness's testimony. Next, Smith said it wasn't right for the jury to know about his previous suspended sentence during the trial. He believed that mentioning this past sentence by the prosecutor made the jury biased against him and influenced the punishment they decided on. The jury even had questions about how his past might relate to their decision, which showed they were affected by this information. Smith also argued that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him by failing to investigate these issues properly. However, the court thought that the evidence against him was strong and that the errors made during the trial, while present, did not change his guilt. Still, the judge decided that the combination of these errors meant that Smith should not serve the full twenty-five years, so his sentence was reduced to seventeen years instead. Ultimately, the court affirmed Smith's conviction but changed his sentence to make it lighter, acknowledging the mistakes made during the trial without completely overturning the conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-47, Kenneth Simmons appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. Mark Kenneth Simmons was found guilty of Manslaughter after his trial for Murder in the First Degree. The jury gave him a fifteen-year prison sentence. He appealed, saying the trial court made an error by not informing the jury that he had to serve at least 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The law in Oklahoma states that people convicted of specific crimes, like First Degree Murder or Manslaughter in the First Degree, must serve at least 85% of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. In a previous case, the court decided that jurors should know about these rules when they are deciding on a sentence. During the trial, when the jury asked if they needed to consider the 85% rule, the court told them to continue deliberating without giving any additional information. This was seen as a mistake. The State argued that this mistake did not affect the outcome significantly, but the court disagreed and said it was clear this lack of instruction was a big error. Because of this error, the court couldn’t be confident that the jury fully understood the implications of the sentence they handed down. The court decided that a new sentence should be determined, either by a properly instructed jury or by the District Court if the jury was waived by Simmons. The court affirmed the judgment but vacated the sentence, meaning they believed he should be tried again for sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-832, George Robert Brewington appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and other related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions on some counts but reversed one count due to insufficient evidence. One judge dissented. Brewington was found guilty of possessing drugs near a public park and in the presence of a minor. The evidence showed that he had knowledge of the drugs and had control over them, which was enough for the court to uphold this part of the conviction. However, for another count related to the possession of drugs without a tax stamp, the evidence was not enough. Brewington only had a small amount of drugs, which didn’t meet the legal requirement needed for that charge. He also claimed that his lawyer didn’t do a good job by not trying to have certain evidence thrown out. The court determined that his lawyer was not ineffective because the evidence was gathered from a consented search. Therefore, there was no need to suppress the evidence as the search was legal. Overall, the court confirmed that Brewington's conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance was valid, but they reversed the conviction for having the drugs without a tax stamp and will correct the records to reflect the accurate law he was convicted under.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-1312, Ronnie Ray Shelton appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Shelton's suspended sentence. One member of the court dissented. Here is what happened: Shelton had been sentenced to ten years in prison for robbing someone, but he only had to serve three years if he followed the rules of his probation. However, on July 3, 2006, the State of Oklahoma said he broke the rules by committing new crimes, including Domestic Assault and Battery, Possession of a Controlled Substance, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. A hearing took place on December 18, 2006, where Shelton had a lawyer. The judge said Shelton did violate his probation by committing Domestic Assault and Battery, which led to the decision to take away his suspended sentence completely. Shelton was not happy with this decision and decided to appeal it. In court, the judges reviewed if the decision to revoke Shelton's sentence was fair. They explained that to revoke a suspended sentence, there only needs to be enough evidence showing he broke the rules. They found enough evidence that Shelton did commit the necessary crime. The judges decided that taking away Shelton's suspended sentence was the right choice and there was no abuse of discretion in the judge's decision. However, they noted that there was a mistake in the paperwork regarding how long Shelton's sentence was supposed to be. The court said this mistake should be corrected to show his correct sentence. Ultimately, they agreed with the lower court's decision to revoke Shelton's sentence but ordered them to fix the error in the paperwork.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-854, Delbert L. Gibson appealed his conviction for two counts of lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Gibson was found guilty of sexually fondling two young girls, aged thirteen and eleven, in September 2002. During the incident, Gibson followed the older girl into a bedroom and began to fondle her. The younger girl was also fondled shortly after. The girls told their mother about the incident and reported it to the police. Gibson raised four main points of error during his appeal. The first claimed he did not receive a speedy trial. The court looked at how long he waited for the trial, why there was a delay, whether he asked for a quick trial, and if the delay harmed his case. Gibson was charged in November 2002 but was not arrested until March 2005, with the trial occurring in June 2006. The court found that even though the delay seemed long, Gibson did not complain about it before the trial, which hurt his argument. Therefore, the court believed he was not denied a speedy trial. Gibson's second point was about other-crimes evidence that was presented during his trial. The state brought up a past incident where Gibson had fondled a ten-year-old girl while working as a school photographer twenty years earlier. The court agreed that this evidence was probably not properly connected to the current case but felt it did not significantly impact the jury’s decision, especially since the two young girls provided strong testimonies. In his third point, Gibson argued the jury was incorrectly instructed on the penalties for his crimes. He believed that the law didn’t support a mandatory life sentence without parole based on the charges brought against him. The court analyzed the laws and determined that the proper penalties did not include mandatory life sentences, leading them to modify his sentence instead. Finally, Gibson claimed that all these problems together denied him a fair trial. Since the court found no major errors, the cumulative effect claim was also denied. Overall, the court upheld Gibson's conviction for molestation, but changed his sentence to a total of twenty-five years in prison instead of life without parole.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-598, Timmy Eugene Owen appealed his conviction for escaping from Grady County Jail and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Owen's convictions but reverse his sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented from the opinion. Timmy Eugene Owen was convicted for two crimes: escaping from jail and assaulting a police officer. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison for the escape and ten years for the assault. Owen appealed this decision, claiming that he did not get a fair trial because of several reasons. First, he argued that the trial judge should have given him a mistrial due to improper questions from the prosecutor during the trial. However, the court said the judge did not make a mistake because the questions asked did not unfairly influence the jury's decision. Owen also claimed that the prosecutor acted unethically during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court agreed that some of the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate but believed they did not change the outcome of the trial. They said that despite these comments, the evidence against Owen was very strong. Additionally, Owen believed that his sentences were too harsh. He felt it was unfair to receive a life sentence for escaping from jail and ten years for the assault. The court did not change the life sentence for the escape but suggested that all sentences might need reconsideration because they found that the prosecutor's words affected the sentencing. Owen also raised an issue about being punished twice for the two different crimes. However, the court stated that the two crimes were separate and required different evidence, so they did not violate any laws about double punishment. In the end, while the court affirmed Owen's guilty verdicts, saying he was rightly found guilty for both charges, they reversed the sentences and sent the case back to lower court for a new sentencing. A judge disagreed, believing the trial was fair despite the errors.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-378, Kevin Davis appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm part of the revocation while reversing another part. One judge dissented. Kevin Davis had previously been sentenced for possession of marijuana and for driving under the influence. These sentences included portions that were suspended, meaning he could avoid serving time if he followed the rules of his probation. However, when Davis was convicted of attempted robbery, the state sought to revoke his suspended sentences. The decision in the case centered around two main issues. First, Davis argued that the court unfairly required him to serve his revoked sentences one after the other, instead of allowing him to serve them at the same time as his new sentence. The court found that the judge had the right to make that decision and did not see it as wrongful. Second, Davis claimed that the court had no power to revoke his earlier marijuana charge since the time to do so had already passed. The court agreed with him on this point and decided that the application to revoke was filed too late. As a result, the court kept the revocation of one sentence in place but instructed the lower court to dismiss the application concerning the other sentence because it was no longer valid.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1058, Shaynathian Rashaud Hicks appealed his conviction for multiple charges including indecent exposure, attempted rape, injury to a minor child, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for indecent exposure and remand it with instructions to dismiss. The remaining convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented regarding certain aspects of the opinion. To explain further, Hicks was tried and found guilty of several serious offenses. These included lewd acts like indecent exposure and attempted rape. The jury gave him a total of different sentences, with the most time for his attempted rape and injury to a minor child. Hicks felt that the evidence against him was not strong enough and presented several reasons why he thought he should win his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to show that his actions qualified as indecent exposure. The court agreed and reversed that conviction, saying the evidence didn’t show he acted in a lewd way. However, for the other charges like attempted rape and injury to a minor, the court found the evidence sufficient, so his convictions for those remained in place. Hicks also had a problem with the way the trial was conducted. He claimed that he wasn’t able to confront all the witnesses against him because some of their testimonies were taken without them being present at the trial. But the court decided the trial was fair and followed the rules. Hicks felt that mistakes were made in how the jury was instructed about the law and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. The court looked into these claims, but most were either waived or didn’t have a significant impact on the trial's outcome. In summary, while the court reversed his conviction for indecent exposure due to a lack of evidence, it upheld the other convictions because they found there was enough evidence for those offenses. Hicks’s overall arguments did not lead to a change in the other convictions, which means he must serve his sentences as determined by the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-114, Tuydale Eugene LeFlore appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Damage, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment for Leaving the Scene and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, but modified his sentence for Second Degree Murder from sixty years to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for the murder charge, arguing that there was no evidence that the jury considered parole during their decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-557, Larry Eugene Wright appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number while committing a felony, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and obstructing an officer, but reversed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-855, Fomby appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Fomby was found guilty of several crimes in Comanche County. He received a long sentence of sixty years for each burglary, two years for the possession of methamphetamine, and ten years for concealing stolen property. These sentences were to be served one after the other, making the total time very long. Fomby claimed that there were many mistakes during his trial. He said the court wrongly changed a standard instruction by adding details about his past sentences, which might have influenced the jury. He also mentioned that the prosecutor said he was no longer considered innocent before the trial even concluded, which he felt was unfair. Furthermore, he argued that the court allowed evidence of other crimes unfairly, and he did not get a fair hearing for new charges that were added. The appeal court looked at all these claims. They agreed that the change in jury instruction was a mistake and the prosecutor's comments on Fomby's innocence were improper. Because of these two main points, the court decided to change his sentences from sixty years each to thirty years to be served together instead of one after the other. They concluded that some of Fomby’s other arguments did not have enough merit to change the outcome of the case. For example, they found there was enough evidence to show he knowingly hid stolen items and had possession of methamphetamine. In the end, most of Fomby's convictions were upheld, but his sentences were significantly reduced to make them less severe. One judge did not agree with this modification, believing the original sentences were justified given Fomby’s serious crimes and history.
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 2004-1305, Anthony Joseph Frost appealed his conviction for Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the aggravated attempting to elude charge due to errors during the trial. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Frost faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of two charges. The jury decided on a punishment of 40 years for the first charge and 1 year with a $1,000 fine for the second charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. Frost appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court did not give the jury enough information about parole eligibility and that the court made a mistake by not redacting previous sentence information from his prior convictions. The court found that the trial court did not do anything wrong with the first claim because Frost did not raise an objection during the trial. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake in how previous sentences were presented to the jury. This information could have influenced the jury's decision on the punishment. The court decided to change Frost’s sentence for aggravated attempting to elude from 40 years to 25 years, while keeping the sentence for the drug paraphernalia charge the same. The judges all agreed on some parts of the decision, but one judge disagreed with changing Frost's sentence, believing that the jury should be fully informed about the defendant's history to make a fair decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-211, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography and producing child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition for writ of certiorari and affirm the judgment while modifying the sentences. One judge dissented. Chad Justin Berntson entered guilty pleas to two serious charges related to child pornography in December 2004. In February 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in prison for each charge, with the sentences set to be served at the same time. He later asked to change his pleas, but the court said no. Berntson argued there were misunderstandings with the plea deal and claimed that one of the charges was not applied correctly, which made his plea involuntary. He also felt that the ten-year sentences were too harsh. After looking closely at his claims and the documents related to his case, the court decided that he did not have a misunderstanding about his plea. They noted that Berntson knew what to expect as they both agreed on a sentence of ten years. However, the court found that he was charged incorrectly with one of the counts, meaning he should have faced a lesser maximum sentence according to the different law that applied. Because of that, they changed the judgment and sentence for that count to five years instead. In the end, the court denied Berntson's request to change his plea, but they adjusted his sentence. They set both counts to five years in prison instead of the original ten years. The two sentences would still be served at the same time. One judge disagreed with how the court modified the sentences, believing that if Berntson entered a valid plea and got the sentence he expected, it should not be changed. This judge thought the court was wrong to alter the charges and punishments after the fact.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-314, the appellant appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the conviction to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Morton D. Hayner was found guilty of making methamphetamine in a trial. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and imposed a $50,000 fine. Hayner argued that the evidence was not enough to prove he manufactured meth, he should have been given chances for lesser charges, and that the fine was too high for him since he didn't have much money. The court looked carefully at the evidence and agreed with Hayner on the first point. They said he was actually trying to manufacture meth but had not finished the process when the police arrived. So, they changed his conviction from manufacturing to attempting to manufacture. On the second point, the court found that Hayner was not denied the chance to consider lesser charges. For the third point, the court decided the fine was appropriate because it matched the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Hayner's conviction was changed to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine, but the life sentence and fine were kept the same.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-871, George Shelton, Jr., appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Shelton's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. George Shelton was found guilty after a trial. He was accused of hiding stolen things and had a history of past crimes, which meant he could face a heavier punishment. The jury decided on a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Shelton thought this punishment was too harsh and argued that what the prosecutor did was unfair because they brought up his past crimes during the trial. He believed this was done because he had tried to defend himself. The court looked very closely at everything that happened. They thought there wasn’t enough evidence to show that the prosecutor acted unfairly against Shelton. They believed that the facts presented during the case were enough to prove he was guilty. However, they agreed with Shelton that his punishment was too much. They decided to change his sentence to five years instead of thirty-five. In short, the court upheld the conviction of Shelton but changed his punishment to be less severe. While one judge agreed with the conviction and the sentence reduction, they did not think the modification was correct and chose to disagree.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-991, James Preston Ray, Sr., appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided that while Ray's conviction and life imprisonment sentence were affirmed, the $50,000 fine imposed was vacated. One judge dissented regarding the vacation of the fine. The case was about Ray being found guilty of making methamphetamine after a trial where the jury heard evidence about his prior felony convictions. Ray argued that he did not get a fair trial due to several problems with how the trial was handled. He listed eight points of error. One major point was that he believed the jury was incorrectly told about the punishments they could give him. He also argued that the court should not have let evidence of his previous convictions be shown to the jury and that this influenced their decision unfairly. Ray claimed that the evidence of his guilt was not strong enough, and he thought the fine he was given was too high. He also said that all the mistakes made together took away his chance for a fair trial. The court reviewed these claims. They specifically looked at his concerns about the instructions the jury received regarding punishment. They noted that Ray was charged under a law that set his punishment between seven years and life in prison. Because Ray had prior convictions, he could be sentenced to a longer term. The law had been changed in 2002, meaning that the state could ask for both a longer imprisonment and additional fines for drug offenses. However, the state did not ask for the jury to be instructed about the fine, which led to the decision to vacate it. Ray also questioned whether the state could present the second page of the Information that listed his prior offenses, but the court ruled that he had agreed to those charges beforehand and did not raise any objections at the right times during the process. In the end, the court found that the evidence against Ray was sufficient for the conviction, and even though there were some mistakes, they did not change the trial's outcome. Therefore, his conviction and life sentence were upheld, but the fine was removed because it was not properly included in his penalty based on the law at the time. One judge, however, believed that the fine should not have been removed, stating that the changes made by the legislature allowed for both a longer sentence and a fine.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-584, Sarah Mae Jones appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but modified it to reflect two years and ten months instead of the full sentence. One dissenting opinion was noted. Sarah Mae Jones had initially entered a guilty plea on October 18, 2001, for possession of cocaine and was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended. This meant she wouldn't have to serve time in jail if she followed certain rules. However, after violating her probation, she had parts of her suspended sentence revoked on two different occasions. The first revocation happened because she did not meet some requirements like reporting in person, maintaining a job, and avoiding illegal drugs. This led to a 60-day revocation. The second time, in March 2004, the state argued that she had again broken the rules of her probation. The court held another hearing where the judge decided to revoke her entire suspended sentence. On appeal, Jones claimed there wasn't enough evidence to support the complete revocation of her sentence. However, the court found that her own admissions during the hearing showed she had indeed violated her probation terms, which justified the judge’s decision. They explained that proving a violation only needs to show that it was likely she broke the rules, not to have a witness directly see it happen. In her second argument, Jones said the decision to revoke her entire suspended sentence without giving her credit for time already served was too harsh. The state agreed with her on this point, and upon reviewing her case, the court modified the revocation to two years and ten months, accounting for the time she had already spent under the suspended sentence. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke her suspended sentence but adjusted the length of that sentence to better reflect the circumstances.