In OCCA case No. F 2003-1163, Christopher Ray Murphy appealed his conviction for four counts of indecent or lewd acts with a child under sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions, but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-673, Booker James Johnson, Jr., appealed his conviction for procuring a minor to participate in the preparation of obscene material and possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of two serious crimes by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury decided he should go to prison for twenty years for the first conviction and pay a fine of $25,000 for the second. He didn't agree with this and appealed. Johnson claimed there were several problems during his trial. First, he said it was unfair to make him defend against both charges in the same trial. He believed that separate trials would have been better. He also argued that the instructions given to the jury about how to decide his punishment were wrong because they used the wrong law for his first charge. Johnson said he should only serve ten years for that charge instead of twenty based on this mistake. For the second charge, Johnson claimed he should have been charged under a different statute that better fit the crime. As a result, the fine for this charge should have been lower, at $5,000 instead of $25,000. Johnson also argued that his right to a fair trial was damaged by a statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, suggesting that both charges should be considered together. He felt that this was unfair and went against his rights. Additionally, Johnson said his lawyer did not help him enough, which made his trial unfair. Finally, he complained that he did not have access to important evidence needed for his defense. The court reviewed all of Johnson's claims. They decided that it was not a big mistake for the trial judge to keep both charges together. However, they did agree that the jury was instructed incorrectly about the first charge, and thus modified the punishment to ten years. For the second charge, they recognized that Johnson should have been charged under a more specific statute, so they also corrected the fine to $5,000. In the end, the court kept Johnson's conviction for both crimes but changed his sentence to ten years in prison for the first charge and a $5,000 fine for the second charge, with some paperwork corrections needed to officially note these changes.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-918, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated him from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. The case began on April 10, 2002, when the appellant pleaded no contest to a DUI charge. He was given a suspended sentence, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the rules. He also had to pay a fine and do community service. Later, he faced another DUI charge. He pleaded guilty again with a promise that if he successfully completed the Drug Court program, he wouldn’t have to face further charges for the first DUI. However, on May 1, 2003, the State accused him of violating the terms of the Drug Court program. The State claimed he had been sanctioned multiple times for not following the rules. On August 5, 2003, the court decided to revoke his suspended sentence and ended his participation in the Drug Court program. The appellant believed the court made a mistake by terminating him from Drug Court based on violations he had already been punished for. He felt this was unfair and argued it amounted to double jeopardy, which means being punished twice for the same offense. The State argued that they were not punishing him again for those violations but believed that the sanctions had not helped him change his behavior. The court examined the situation and found that the appellant had already faced consequences for his earlier violations. It agreed with him that the reasons for his termination were flawed. The judges noted that if prior violations were allowed to be counted again for the same termination, it would be unfair and might discourage other participants in Drug Court. The court decided to remand the case back to the lower court, allowing the appellant to return to the Drug Court program with the original rules he had agreed upon. The judges highlighted that a new violation must occur in order for more severe actions, like termination, to be taken. In summary, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, indicating that the reasons for his termination from Drug Court were not valid, thus restoring his opportunity to complete the program.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-583, Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Ronald King was found guilty of delivering a type of illegal drug. The jury decided that he should go to prison for twenty-five years and pay a fine of $30,000. King thought the trial was unfair for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence, which was the illegal drug, should not have been used in court. He believed there was not enough proof to show that the drug was really connected to him. However, the court thought that the State had enough proof to say that the evidence was properly linked to King. Second, King said he should have been able to see notes from a police officer who helped in his case. The court found that there was no mistake here because King had everything he needed from the prosecutor's file. Third, King believed his punishment was too harsh and thought the prosecutor said some unfair things during the trial that might have influenced the jury. The court agreed that the sentence was too much in terms of the fine. They lowered the fine from $30,000 to $10,000 but kept the prison sentence the same. In the end, King's prison sentence stands, but the amount he has to pay was reduced.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1245, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but modify the sentence for conspiracy to ten years. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-749, Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. had originally entered a guilty plea for Second Degree Burglary and Concealing Stolen Property in 1993. He was given three years of imprisonment on both charges, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to jail if he followed certain rules. However, he committed another crime in 1993, which violated the terms of his suspended sentences. In 1994, the State applied to revoke his suspended sentences because of this new crime. There was a significant delay before the hearing actually took place. Heath was not given a hearing until 2000, which was almost six years after the application to revoke was filed. He argued that the State did not act quickly enough and that this delay meant the revocation should not happen. The State admitted that they had made a mistake and agreed with Heath’s concerns about the delay. The court agreed with Heath’s argument and decided to reverse the order that revoked his suspended sentence. They also instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. The decision meant that Heath’s original sentences were not enforced, and he would not have to serve them because the State did not handle the process in a timely manner.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-211, Sherl D. Batise appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence, meaning Batise will continue to serve his time in prison. One judge dissented. Batise was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. He argued in his appeal that he did not have good legal help during his trial, that his punishment was too harsh, and that the court did not properly decide how much money he should pay in restitution to the victim. The court looked closely at Batise's claims. They found that he could not prove that having better legal help would have changed the outcome of his trial. They also thought that a thirty-five-year sentence was appropriate, especially since Batise had prior felony convictions, including serious crimes. The court explained that a long sentence was justified given the severity of his actions, which involved attacking someone with a machete. Regarding the restitution, the court agreed with Batise that the trial judge did not follow the right steps when deciding how much money he should pay to the victim. The judge was supposed to take into account whether Batise could afford to make those payments without causing serious hardship to him or his family, and he also needed clear evidence of how much the victim lost. Since this was not done correctly, the court decided to vacate the restitution order and sent the case back to the trial court for further review. In summary, Batise’s conviction was upheld, meaning he remains in prison, but the order about how much he should pay the victim was canceled, and that will be re-evaluated by the trial court.
In OCCA case No. C-2000-750, Nikisha Lynn Farris appealed her conviction for robbery in the first degree and concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Farris pleaded guilty to robbery and concealing stolen property. She did not have a deal with the District Attorney about her sentence. The judge sentenced her to 100 years for robbery and 5 years for concealing stolen property, and both sentences would be served at the same time. After her sentence, Farris wanted to take back her guilty plea. However, the trial court said no when she asked to withdraw her plea. Farris then appealed the trial court's decision, and the court looked at everything in the case including records and Farris's arguments. The court found that Farris's plea was knowing and voluntary, meaning she understood what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. The court also determined that her lawyer did not make mistakes that harmed her case. However, the court thought the 100-year sentence for robbery was too harsh. They decided to change her sentence to 30 years instead. So while Farris would still have to spend time in prison, it would be less time than what she was originally given. The court agreed to modify the sentence while keeping the other parts of the original decision.