In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.
In OCCA case No. C 2014-693, a person appealed his conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow him to withdraw his no contest plea due to receiving bad advice from his attorney, which made his plea not knowing and voluntary. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-270, Gabriel Brian Solis appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing before a different trial court. Solis had entered a plea where he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for reasons other than guilt. He was sentenced to eighty years in prison and a fine, needing to serve 85% of the time before being eligible for parole. After feeling he was unfairly treated, he tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial judge did not allow it. Solis then sought a higher court's intervention, which granted him a new hearing with a different lawyer. During the new hearing, it was found that the judge had shown bias against Solis and that his attorney had not done enough to protect his rights. This bias and the lack of effective legal representation were key reasons for the court’s ruling that Solis had been denied a fair trial. The court ultimately agreed that there were serious issues with how the plea was handled and the sentencing process. In summary, the court ruled in favor of Solis due to the unfairness he experienced in his initial trial, which led to the decision to have the case heard again, ensuring a fair process moving forward.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-730, Mon'tre Brown appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Attempted Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case to the District Court. The dissenting opinion argued against the majority's decision. Mon'tre Brown was given several charges, including serious ones like murder and burglary. He pleaded guilty to all counts in April 2013 but later wanted to change his plea, claiming he didn’t understand what he was doing due to his mental condition. The trial court denied his request, leading to this appeal. During the initial plea hearing, there were concerns about Mon'tre's mental competency because of his low IQ, which was reported as around 65. His attorney was aware of his learning disabilities, but they appeared not to conduct a thorough investigation into his mental health before allowing him to plead guilty. Mon'tre claimed he felt pressured to plead guilty because his counsel had said he couldn’t win the case. At a later hearing, Mon'tre's family and mental health professionals testified that he struggle to understand the legal concepts involved in his case, which raised questions about his ability to make informed decisions. Some of the professionals stated he didn’t have a clear understanding of what his guilty plea meant or the consequences of waiving his right to trial. The court found that the attorney had not adequately assessed Mon'tre's competence or sought further evaluations that could have supported his claim of mental retardation. It decided that his attorney's failure to investigate his mental condition and present sufficient evidence during the plea process was ineffective assistance of counsel. Ultimately, the court believed that there’s a reasonable chance that had adequate evidence of Mon'tre's mental condition been presented early, it may have changed the outcome of his guilty plea. Thus, they ruled in favor of allowing Mon'tre to withdraw his guilty plea and directed for conflict-free counsel to represent him in further proceedings.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-1046, Ronald Franz appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the district court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-1165, the petitioner appealed his conviction for Child Abuse or, in the alternative, Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. Gabriel Brian Solis entered a type of guilty plea called an Alford plea, where he did not admit guilt but accepted a sentence possibility. He was sentenced to 80 years in prison and a $100 fine. Solis later wanted to take back his plea and filed a request to withdraw it, but this request was denied after two hearings where no real evidence was presented. The court noted that Solis did not get a fair chance to prove why he wanted to withdraw his plea, as he did not have a proper evidentiary hearing where witnesses could provide testimony or be questioned. It was also noted that during the hearing, Solis's attorney might have had a conflict of interest, which meant he could not represent Solis effectively. The court found that the trial judge did not allow enough evidence or witness testimonies at the hearings. Because of these issues, the case was sent back to the lower court so that Solis could have a proper evidentiary hearing with a new, conflict-free attorney. The remaining claims in Solis's appeal were no longer considered necessary since the hearing was to be redone.
In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0601, Danyale Lamont McCollough appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Danyale McCollough had pleaded guilty to several charges over the years, which included possession of a firearm and robbery with a firearm. He was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not have to serve time in prison right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke these rules, his suspended sentences could be revoked, and he could go to prison. Later, the State, which is the side that brings charges against people, said that McCollough had committed a new crime. This led to a hearing where a judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The judge used some evidence from a different trial to decide this, which McCollough argued was not fair. McCollough said it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from another case without proving it was final. The appeals court agreed with him. They said that the judge had made a mistake by not following the correct legal rules and taking evidence from another trial that was not about the same issues directly related to McCollough’s case. Because of this mistake, the court reversed the revocation of McCollough’s sentences and sent the case back for more review and another chance to prove if he had really violated his probation rules.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-276, Bobby Ray Laney appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The court determined that Laney should be allowed to withdraw his Alford plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel concerning his competency to enter the plea. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1062, Scott Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Phillips' conviction and sentence, but remanded the case for consideration of whether Phillips' sentence should be suspended. One judge dissented. Scott Allen Phillips was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation, which is a serious crime involving inappropriate touching of a child. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, during which he must serve at least 85% before he can be considered for parole. Phillips claimed there were several errors during his trial that should lead to his conviction being overturned. Phillips argued that the prosecutor presented too many instances of inappropriate touching without clearly stating which one he was being accused of for the charge. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction. Additionally, he stated that the judge's decision not to consider a less severe punishment for him was unfair because he exercised his right to a jury trial. Phillips raised multiple issues during the appeal. The court looked at arguments closely and decided that the prosecutor's actions were correct and that they followed the law. They found that there were enough facts for the jury to conclude that Phillips had molested the child. The judges pointed out that the jury's role is to decide who they believe and what evidence to trust. Regarding the sentencing process, the judges noted that the trial judge didn't consider Phillips' request for a lesser sentence. This became important because a judge is expected to think about such requests carefully, regardless of whether the defendant went to trial. This is why the court decided to give the case back to the lower court for a fresh look at Phillips' request for a suspended sentence. Another major point Phillips raised was his concern about how the trial was handled. He asked to speak with jurors after the trial ended, hoping to gather more insight about their decision. However, the court said this was not allowed because jurors cannot discuss their deliberations or decisions after the trial is over. The court also examined the use of videotaped evidence during the trial. Phillips complained that the videos of the alleged victim’s statements should not have been shown again to the jurors while they were discussing. However, the judges felt the decision to show the videos was acceptable and did not harm Phillips' chances at a fair trial. Ultimately, the judges concluded that they would not disturb Phillips' conviction since there was sufficient evidence and no significant errors during the trial that affected the outcome. However, they did want the lower court to look again at Phillips' request for a suspension of his sentence, ensuring he had a fair chance at having that request reviewed properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while allowing the opportunity for reconsideration regarding the potential suspension of the sentence, which shows that even in serious cases, there are processes in place to ensure fair treatment under the law.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-277, Crystal Lynn Erb appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of new, conflict-free counsel to represent Erb in her application to withdraw her Alford plea. One judge dissented. Crystal Lynn Erb was charged with child neglect after she was accused of not taking care of her infant, Tamberlyn Wheeler. The events that led to the charges happened between January 2008 and April 2008, but the official charges were not filed until January 2011. This was a delay of almost 2 years and 9 months. A preliminary hearing took place in May 2011, and Erb was bound over on the charge. On October 12, 2011, she entered an Alford plea, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted a plea deal because it was in her best interest. She agreed to testify against her co-defendant, Samuel Wheeler, and was released on her own recognizance. During the sentencing hearing in February 2012, Erb was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Shortly after, her lawyer filed a motion for her to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that Erb was innocent. However, during the hearing for this motion, the lawyer did not present any strong arguments or evidence for why Erb should be allowed to withdraw her plea. The judge denied the motion. Erb later filed an appeal and sought a review by the court, raising several claims for why her plea should be re-evaluated. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or intelligently and that she did not receive good legal help due to a conflict with her attorney. The court noted that the issues Erb raised in her appeal were not dealt with properly by her lawyer when they tried to withdraw her plea. The court expressed concerns about whether her plea was voluntary and if her attorney did not provide effective assistance. Since the same lawyer represented Erb during both the plea and the motion process, the court decided that Erb needed a new attorney who could help her without any conflicts of interest. As a result, the court ordered that the case be sent back to appoint a new lawyer for Erb so that they could help her file a new application to withdraw her Alford plea and represent her in any related hearings. The decision was made to ensure that Erb received fair and effective legal help.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-381, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a (published) decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. Gary Alan Stine took an Alford plea, which means he didn't admit guilt but accepted the punishment, to several serious crimes including indecent exposure and rape. He was sentenced to many years in prison, with some parts of his sentences running at the same time. Later, Stine tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his sentence was unfair and that the participation of a guardian ad litem, who looks out for the interests of a child in court, negatively impacted his case. He believed this guardian acted too much like a prosecutor, which he thought was wrong. Stine also thought his lawyer did not help him properly during his case. The court looked carefully at everything, including the original records and what was said in court. They found that Stine's claims about both the guardian's role and his lawyer's performance were not valid. They noted that Stine had properly understood the charges against him and his sentence. Because of this, the court decided there wasn't enough reason to change Stine's plea or his sentence. They agreed that some parts of Stine's requests weren't even considered because they were not raised properly earlier. The court also found there was a mistake in the written document of his sentence that needed correcting, but that was just a small clerical issue, not a bigger problem with his case. In the end, the court denied Stine's petition to withdraw his plea and said they would correct the written sentence to match what was said in court.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-762, Mason appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Mason's suspended sentence but ordered a correction regarding the time served. One judge dissented. Mason had previously entered a guilty plea for a drug-related charge and received a suspended sentence, which meant he didn’t have to go to prison immediately but had to follow certain rules. Over time, he violated those rules several times. The state government, which is responsible for enforcing the law, filed multiple applications to revoke his suspended sentence due to his failures to comply with the terms of probation. He confessed to some of the allegations against him, such as not completing community service and not paying fees. After multiple chances and extensions given by the court to fix his issues, Mason still did not follow the rules. For example, he used drugs again and didn’t seek help as he was supposed to. At a hearing, the court found that Mason did not meet the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his suspended sentence completely. Mason argued that the court shouldn’t have been able to take away the whole suspended sentence because he had already served some time. The court agreed that Mason needed to be credited for time served but found it was appropriate to revoke the rest of the suspended sentence given that he didn’t comply when given chances. The final decision was to affirm the judgment that Mason had violated probation, but with instructions to the lower court to ensure they correctly noted how much time was left on his sentence. In conclusion, while Mason's appeal did not succeed in changing the outcome of the revocation, he was recognized for the days he had already spent in custody.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-260, the petitioner appealed his conviction for ten counts of child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner’s request for a remand for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. The case focused on whether the petitioner’s guilty plea was entered knowingly and intelligently, particularly regarding the requirement that he be a person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare. One judge dissented, arguing that the majority's discussion on the plea's validity was unnecessary and constituted advisory dicta.
In OCCA case No. C 2009-665, Sutton appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Sutton's request to withdraw his guilty plea. Sutton dissented. Petitioner Donald Edward Sutton, Jr. had pleaded guilty to a serious crime. The judge sentenced him to twenty years in prison, but he would only serve eight of those years before possibly getting out. After the plea, Sutton thought things were unfair and said he didn't understand everything when he agreed to plead guilty. Sutton said he didn’t know about important details like having to spend 85% of his time in prison before being eligible for parole or that he would have to register as a sex offender. He felt that he didn't get the help he needed from his lawyer when he entered his plea and when he tried to take it back later. Sutton thought his 20-year sentence was too harsh, especially because he believed there were reasons to be lenient. After reviewing all the information provided, the court agreed that Sutton wasn't given all the facts he needed to make an informed choice about his plea. This omission made his agreement invalid since he didn’t enter it knowingly and voluntarily. The court decided that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and gave orders for the case to go back for further consideration. The other claims Sutton made about his lawyer and the fairness of his sentence became unnecessary to discuss because of this main issue. In summary, Sutton was given a chance to change his plea because the court found that he wasn’t properly informed about important consequences of his decision.
In OCCA Case No. F-2008-786, James Dion Smith appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that had accelerated his Judgment and Sentence and ordered the District Court to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Smith had originally entered a plea of no contest for possession of a controlled substance, and his sentence was delayed for two years. This means he didn't have to go to jail right away as long as he followed the rules during that time. However, later on, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to speed up Smith's sentence because they believed he had broken the rules. When the court had a hearing to look into the State’s request, they decided to impose Smith's sentence. But Smith argued that the court shouldn’t have done this based on something that happened after his period of supervision had ended. After examining the details, the court agreed with Smith. They found that the reason for speeding up his sentence was tied to a new case that occurred after the time Smith was supposed to be on probation. They decided the lower court was wrong to speed up his sentence and told them to cancel the action against Smith. In the dissenting opinion, the judge felt the court overlooked how the situation happened. This judge pointed out that Smith admitted to not following the rules during his probation. When Smith did not show up for a later hearing, the judge believed the court could still take action against him based on his failure to appear, even if new charges could not be considered. In the end, the main ruling was to reverse the earlier decision and to dismiss the case against Smith.
In OCCA case No. C 2008-1183, Kory Williams appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including shooting with intent to kill and possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily, leading to the granting of his petition for certiorari. The judgment and sentence were vacated and the case was sent back for further proceedings. One member dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2009-89, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Murray a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. One member dissented. William Jackson Murray pled nolo contendere to two serious crimes: burglary in the first degree and aggravated assault and battery. After pleading, he was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years in prison. Murray wanted to take back his pleas, so he filed a request to withdraw them. However, the judge denied his request without holding a hearing first. Murray argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him a hearing on his motion. He was right. The court looked at the case and saw that there should have been a hearing to discuss his request. Even though a date for a hearing was set, the judge made a decision before they could actually have the hearing. The court noted that it is important for a person to have a chance to speak about their request to withdraw a plea because it is a significant part of the trial process. Since he did not get this chance, the court decided that Murray deserved a hearing about his motion before any further decisions were made. The decision of the court was to allow Murray to have a hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. They sent the case back to the lower court so that the hearing could take place.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-667, Daniel Timothy Hogan appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation, Lewd Molestation, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for some counts but reversed and remanded other counts based on the statute of limitations. One judge dissented. The case involved Hogan, who lived with his wife and her three daughters, all of whom had learning disabilities. Testimonies revealed that Hogan had sexually abused the girls multiple times over several years, starting when they were very young. The incidents included inappropriate touching and forced sexual acts. Hogan claimed that some charges should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. The court agreed with him regarding several counts, concluding that the state did not press charges in time based on when the victims knew about the incidents and their nature as crimes. Hogan also argued that the trial judge unfairly imposed consecutive sentences rather than allowing them to run concurrently, as he claimed there was a courthouse policy against such decisions. However, the court found that the judge considered the facts of the case in deciding how to sentence Hogan. Ultimately, while some convictions against Hogan were reversed because of the statute of limitations, his life sentence and the convictions that were upheld reflected the seriousness of the abuse he inflicted on the young victims, leaving a lasting impact on their lives.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-1154, Rayshun Carlie Mullins appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including rape and robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Mullins could withdraw his guilty pleas to many of the charges because he was not informed that he would have to serve 85% of his sentences before being eligible for parole. One judge dissented, arguing that the court should not vacate the pleas since Mullins knew he faced a long prison term when he entered his guilty pleas.
In OCCA case No. C-2007-829, Jeffery L. Jinks appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. To explain a bit more: Jeffery Jinks pleaded guilty to the crime of Child Sexual Abuse in a district court. The judge accepted his plea and wanted a report to see what his sentence should be. Before he was sentenced, Jinks wanted to take back his plea but the court said no. During his sentencing, he was given a very long sentence of 35 years in prison, with most of that being suspended. This means that he would only serve part of the sentence unless he did something wrong again. Jinks then asked again to take back his plea after the sentencing, but once more the district court said no. After appealing, the court looked at a few important questions: If Jinks really understood what pleading guilty meant, if it was fair for him to be charged as he was, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court decided that Jinks understood his plea and that it was not unfair for him to be charged under the law. However, they did think his sentence was too harsh given his background and decided to change it from 35 years to 20 years in prison, reducing the time he would actually have to serve. So, overall, the court agreed Jinks did something wrong and upheld his conviction but thought the punishment needed to be lighter.
In OCCA case No. C 2005-608, Ricky Allen Rinker appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Rinker's request to withdraw his pleas. One judge dissented. Ricky Allen Rinker made pleas of guilty and nolo contendere for several counts of crimes against children. He was sentenced to a total of over forty years in prison. After some time, Rinker wanted to take back his pleas, saying they were not made knowingly or voluntarily. He believed he was not properly informed about the possible sentences and his eligibility for parole. The court agreed that he had not been properly informed about important rules related to his sentence, particularly that he would need to serve 85% of his time before being eligible for parole. Since this was a serious issue, the court allowed him to withdraw his pleas and overturned his sentence. Some judges thought that Rinker should have to provide more proof that he did not understand the rules concerning his pleas. They believed he had not shown enough evidence that he should be allowed to take back his pleas simply because no official record of his plea was made. However, in the end, the majority ruled in favor of Rinker, allowing him a chance to re-do his plea with all the proper information.
In OCCA case No. C-2006-286, Michelle Emma Hill appealed her conviction for Incitement to Riot. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her the opportunity to withdraw her plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-620, Ryan Anthony Van Winkle appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and forcible oral sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon but affirmed the conviction for forcible oral sodomy. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the assault conviction. The case began when Van Winkle was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious crimes. The jury decided that he should spend five years in prison for the assault and eight years for the sodomy, with these sentences to be served one after the other. During the appeal, several issues were raised. One major question was whether Van Winkle could be punished for both crimes because they were part of the same event. Van Winkle argued that the assault was the same act that made the sodomy forcible, which means he shouldn’t be punished for both under the law. The court looked closely at the details of the case. It found that Van Winkle had threatened the victim with a knife and made her agree to the sodomy because she feared for her safety. They decided that the assault with the knife was not a separate crime from the sodomy since they were tied closely together in this incident. Because of this, the court reversed the conviction for the assault, ordering that charge to be dismissed. While addressing the other arguments made by Van Winkle in his appeal, such as claims about not having a fair trial, the court decided these didn’t require changes since they were mainly related to the assault conviction. In summary, the court kept the conviction for forcible oral sodomy but did not allow the assault charge to stand due to how closely related the two acts were. One judge disagreed with the decision to reverse the assault conviction, believing that both crimes were deserving of punishment.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-493, Billy D. Stout appealed his conviction for violating the Sex Offenders Registration Act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Stout the right to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Stout had pleaded guilty to not registering as a sex offender. He was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $5000. However, Stout later argued that he did not fully understand what he was pleading guilty to, especially because he could not read or write. After leaving jail, he was not properly informed that he needed to register whenever he moved to a new place. Stout said that when he was released from jail, he received paperwork that he could not read, and no one explained to him that he had to register. Although Stout eventually registered once he understood the requirement, he faced charges for not having registered earlier. The court found that Stout's plea was not made willingly and that there was no clear reason to support the plea in the first place. Stout's lawyer did not present any strong arguments during the plea withdrawal hearing, and it seemed they did not understand the law themselves. The court noted that the lack of help Stout received from his lawyer contributed to his confusion and affected his ability to make a fully informed decision about his plea. Overall, the judges concluded that Stout's case should be revisited, and he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and possibly go to trial. The law encourages trying cases in court rather than accepting a guilty plea without a fair understanding.