Sentencing Instruction Archives

F-2018-136

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:January 2, 2020
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-136, Michael Emmanuel Ishman appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ishman's conviction and sentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Ishman who was trialed and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each count, with all sentences running consecutively. Ishman raised several arguments in his appeal regarding the evidence presented, jury instructions, and the conduct of his trial. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery and determined that the witness's corroboration was not required as she was not considered an accomplice. The court also addressed claims of instructional errors regarding the punishment range for firearm possession, finding that the errors were harmless because the jury recommended the maximum sentence. Moreover, the court dismissed claims about the introduction of evidence of other bad acts and the failure to instruct the jury on lesser offenses. The court determined that defense counsel performed adequately, stating that there was no evidence that any of the claimed errors affected the trial's outcome. The court summarized that the jury's recommendation of life sentences was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and affirmed all judgments made by the trial court. Overall, the court did not find sufficient grounds for relief based on Ishman's claims and decided to uphold the conviction and sentencing.

F-2006-1282

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:August 21, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1282, Michael Ralph Conroy appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including first-degree rape, kidnapping, and domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but ordered a new sentencing hearing. One judge dissented, agreeing with the convictions but opposing the need for resentencing. Conroy was found guilty after a jury trial that reviewed evidence against him. He received significant prison time, amounting to 50 years for most of his charges and a year in jail for the domestic abuse charge, along with a fine. During the appeal, Conroy argued various issues, including the admission of evidence related to other crimes, the authenticity of certain exhibits, and the overall lack of evidence supporting his conviction. He also claimed that some evidence presented at trial was not allowed by law and that he did not receive effective legal representation. The court examined all of these arguments. They found that the evidence admitted during the trial was relevant and showed Conroy's guilt, including letters he wrote that indicated his intent to influence witness testimony. The report concerning the sexual assault was also deemed admissible because it fell under a specific exception to regular rules about hearsay. However, the court acknowledged a mistake regarding jury instructions on the 85% rule, which requires certain criminals to serve a significant part of their sentences before being eligible for parole. This oversight necessitated a new hearing only for sentencing. In the end, even though the appeals court affirmed the guilty verdicts, it recognized the trial court should reconsider the sentencing due to the jury instruction error.

F-2005-829

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:November 17, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

F 2005-651

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:July 14, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from twelve years to ten years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Tulsa County, and the jury decided on the punishment. The appellant challenged the trial by arguing that the court made several errors. He felt that the jury was not given the correct information about how long he would have to serve of his sentence. The jury even asked about this during their discussions. The court had previously ruled that information about the eighty-five percent rule wasn't given to the jury, which the appellant argued was unfair. The court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the rule stating how much time must be served, and so they changed his sentence to ten years instead of twelve. Additionally, the appellant argued that evidence from other crimes should not have been allowed during his trial, but the court felt that this evidence was important to show his motives and did not unfairly prejudice the jury. Finally, the appellant claimed he did not receive proper assistance from his lawyer, but the court found that the lawyer's actions were considered okay under the law. Overall, the decision affirmed the conviction but made the punishment a bit less severe.

F-2000-1634

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:December 20, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1634, Edgar Lee Rucker, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the fine imposed. One judge dissented. Rucker was found guilty by a jury for selling methamphetamine and was sentenced to twelve years in prison along with a $10,000 fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to marijuana possession. Rucker argued several points in his appeal, claiming violations of his rights during the trial. The first point raised was that it was wrong for both the drug offense and habitual offender statutes to be used in his sentencing. The court acknowledged this as an error but stated that it only affected the fine; they reduced the fine to $2,500 since it was incorrectly calculated originally. Rucker also argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a habitual offender. However, the court found that the State provided enough evidence regarding his past convictions. He claimed that evidence about his previous bad behavior should not have been allowed in the trial, but the court determined it was relevant for understanding the case. Rucker believed that there was a mismatch between the charges and the evidence, but the court concluded the evidence was consistent with the allegations. Another argument was that his lawyer didn’t do a good job representing him. They noted that while the lawyer should have objected more, it didn’t significantly impact the outcome of the trial. Rucker contended that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial, but the court found that any mistakes made were corrected and did not deny him a fair trial. Finally, Rucker argued that all the errors combined made the trial unfair, but the court decided that the only significant error was the fine and adjusted it accordingly. In summary, the court upheld Rucker’s prison sentence but modified the fine.