Sentencing Instructions Archives

F-2020-291

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 10, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-291, Christopher Alan Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. No one dissented. Vaughn was found guilty by a jury after being accused of trafficking drugs. During the trial, there was a mistake with how the jury understood the punishment for his crime. The jury first marked that he had multiple prior convictions incorrectly, which was fixed when the judge voided it and asked the jury to fill out a proper verdict form. Eventually, the jury marked his prior felony convictions correctly but failed to suggest a sentence. The judge then decided to give him a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Vaughn argued that the judge gave the jury wrong instructions about what the punishment should be. He claimed that the law at the time of his crime said that punishment could range from 20 years to life or life without parole, not just life without parole. The State agreed that there was a mistake in how Vaughn was sentenced. The court reviewed the arguments and found that the jury should have been given proper instructions about the range of punishment. The law in effect when Vaughn committed his crime said that if someone had two or more previous felony convictions, the person could receive a sentence of at least 20 years to life or life without parole, but his prior convictions were not for trafficking, so the incorrect instructions could lead to an unfair sentence. Because of this issue, the court decided to reverse Vaughn’s sentence and sent the case back to the lower court for him to be resentenced properly under the correct guidelines.

F-2018-175

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-175, Charles Randall Hayes appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter while driving under the influence of drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the misdemeanor driving under the influence charge but affirmed the convictions for first-degree manslaughter and driving left of center. One judge dissented. Mr. Hayes was found guilty of serious charges, including manslaughter, because he caused an accident while driving under the influence. The jury gave him a life sentence for this, along with fines for the other charges. He had multiple reasons for appealing his case, claiming that he didn’t get a fair trial, that his sentence was too harsh, that his lawyer didn’t help him enough, and that mistakes happened during the trial that made it unfair. The court looked at whether the charges against him were correct. They agreed that he couldn't be sentenced for both manslaughter and for the misdemeanor of driving under the influence at the same time because that would be unfair punishment for the same action. Mr. Hayes argued that the prosecution behaved badly during the trial, but the court found that there were no serious mistakes that changed the outcome. They believed that the prosecutor's actions did not make the trial unfair enough to change the results. When Mr. Hayes said his sentence was too harsh, the court decided that it was still within the legal limits. They only change sentences if they are shockingly unfair, which they did not find here. Mr. Hayes also claimed that his lawyer did not defend him well enough. However, since the court did not find that the prosecutor made major mistakes, they thought there was no reason to think that a different lawyer would have helped him more. Finally, Mr. Hayes felt that too many errors had happened to make the trial fair at all. The court disagreed and said that since they found none of the individual mistakes were harmful, they couldn’t consider them as a group. In conclusion, the appeal changed one of the misdemeanor charges but largely supported the main conviction.

F-2012-08

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 2, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-08, Ralph T. Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree robbery, attempted rape, forcible sodomy, first-degree rape, and unlawful possession of a controlled drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence on Count I to ten years imprisonment and to remove post-imprisonment supervision from Counts III, IV, and V. One judge dissented. **Summary of the Case:** Ralph T. Smith, Jr. was found guilty of serious crimes against a 76-year-old woman, R.C., after they met at a casino. Smith initiated a friendly interaction with R.C., who ended up offering him a ride. However, he then assaulted her and committed various violent acts, including attempted rape, forcible sodomy, and robbery. The jury sentenced Smith to long prison terms for each conviction. **Key Facts:** - During a day at the casino, Smith befriended R.C. and, after some time, manipulated her into giving him a ride. - Smith then forcibly assaulted R.C. at her house and later at a motel. - After the incident, R.C. reported the crime to her family and the police. **Legal Issues:** 1. **Speedy Trial**: Smith argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated according to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The court reviewed the timeline of events and denied his claim, stating that the time delays were justified. 2. **Sentencing Instructions**: Smith contested that the jury was improperly instructed about the potential punishment. The court agreed there was an error and modified the sentences accordingly. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: He claimed that he did not get adequate legal representation, particularly related to the sentencing instructions. The court noted that this claim was valid but remedied through the sentence modifications. 4. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Smith argued that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were inappropriate. The court found the comments were not severe enough to undermine the fairness of the trial. 5. **Jurisdiction**: Smith questioned whether the court had jurisdiction over some charges since the crimes occurred in different counties. The court ruled that jurisdiction was proper because the kidnapping and subsequent crimes were closely connected. 6. **Pro Se Brief**: Smith attempted to submit additional complaints without sufficient support from his attorney. The court denied this attempt due to failure to follow proper procedures. In conclusion, while Smith's sentence modification was granted throughout the appeals process, the court maintained that he was rightly convicted and that the initial trial was fair despite some errors.

F-2009-959

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 15, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-959, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the lower court's decisions while modifying one of the fines imposed. One member dissented. Napoleon Eugene Manous was tried by jury in the District Court of Okmulgee County, where he was found guilty of two counts: one for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and another for driving with his license suspended. The jury sentenced him to seven years in prison with treatment and a fine for the first count, and to six months in jail with a fine for the second count. Mr. Manous raised several points in his appeal. He claimed his rights were violated in a few ways. For instance, he argued that statements he made while in custody should not have been used against him because he did not receive a warning that he had the right to remain silent (known as a Miranda warning). The court found that the statements were not obtained from police questioning, so they could be used in his trial. He also argued that hearsay evidence was wrongly allowed in his trial. However, the court found that this evidence was not used to prove something true but was only to explain why the police officer acted as he did. Therefore, it did not violate his right to a fair trial. Manous believed he did not get a fair punishment because of incorrect jury instructions about fines for his second count. The court agreed that the jury got bad information about how much they could fine him and decided to change the fine amount to $300 instead of $500. He argued that the trial court misapplied his sentence and didn’t accurately reflect the jury’s decision. The court acknowledged this mistake and agreed to correct the written judgment to match the jury’s decisions. Moreover, Manous claimed that mentioning his past legal troubles during sentencing was unfair. The court, however, found that his lawyer did not object to this at the trial, which weakened his argument on appeal. He also stated his lawyer did not properly fight against the errors during the trial that affected his sentencing. Again, the court found that many issues had already been addressed and it was not enough to have his conviction overturned. Lastly, he combined all his complaints, arguing that they collectively warranted a new trial, but the court ruled that there was no significant accumulation of errors. In summary, the court affirmed much of the initial decisions made by the lower court but did make changes to the fine in one count. One judge disagreed with part of the decision but largely supported the overall outcome.

F-2005-640

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 17, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-640, Don Edward Seely appealed his conviction for Burglary in the First Degree and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to a term of twenty years on each count. One judge dissented. Don Edward Seely was found guilty by a jury. He committed serious crimes, and the jury thought he deserved a long sentence. The judge gave him 21 years for each crime, which would mean he would spend a lot of time in prison. However, there was a problem with how the jury was told to decide the punishment. The judge had made a mistake in telling the jury how long they could send someone to prison for these crimes. Because of this mistake, the court shortened his sentences to 20 years for each crime. Seely argued that the sentences were too long and that he didn't get good help from his lawyer. He also thought the judge should have talked to the jury about some of their questions. While looking through Seely's claims, the court found that most of his arguments were not strong enough to change what happened. They decided that since Seely had previously committed crimes, a total sentence of 40 years (two 20-year sentences) was not surprising or unfair. Seely was not able to prove that his lawyer had made mistakes that would change the outcome of the trial. The court said that even if his lawyer had tried harder, it would not have helped Seely very much. The court also talked about some other things Seely wanted to do, like ask for new trials or present new evidence. However, they decided that redoing the trial was not necessary, especially since they already changed the sentences. Overall, the court agreed with the jury's decision about Seely's guilt but adjusted the punishment because of the earlier error.

F-2005-1146

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1146, Pamela Dee Colley appealed her conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and several other drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, but reversed her conviction for count 3, possession of marijuana. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of count 3. Pamela Colley was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime related to illegal drugs after a traffic stop conducted by a police officer. The case began when the officer noticed her car making a traffic violation early in the morning. When he pulled her over, he found out that Colley did not have a driver's license and provided some confusing information. The police officer thought that drug dealers were operating in the area, so he called for a K9 unit to further check for drugs. When the dog alerted, the police searched her car and found illegal drugs, scales, and items used for drug use in her purse. Colley was very upset and later gave permission for police to search her, leading to more illegal items being discovered on her. Colley argued in court that her sentence of life without parole was unfair and that she didn’t know about the drugs. She claimed that her attorney didn’t defend her well and that the way the trial was handled had problems. However, the court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction. They also decided the police did everything by the book during the traffic stop. While the court agreed that one of her charges resulted in a double punishment, it found that her other convictions were valid given the serious nature of the drug trafficking involved. Thus, she will remain convicted on those charges, which involved large amounts of methamphetamine, while they reversed the possession of marijuana charge due to it being a part of the same incident.

F-2005-814

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-814, James Joseph Wymer appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Wymer was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. He argued that the jury was not fully instructed about the law regarding his sentence, which meant he wasn't told he had to serve eighty-five percent of it. He also felt that his sentence was too long and that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After looking closely at both the facts and the law, the court believed that the jury should have been informed about the eighty-five percent rule, but they did not think this mistake was enough to set aside the conviction. Therefore, they decided to lower Wymer's sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years. The court also considered whether his sentence was excessive. They found that given Wymer's past convictions, the sentence was fair and not shocking or unreasonable. Finally, they reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was enough proof to show that Wymer took part in the burglary rather than just standing by. The final decision was to keep the conviction but change the punishment to thirty-five years.

F-2003-1278

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 31, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1278, James Lorenzo Devers appealed his conviction for Inducing a Minor to Engage in Prostitution and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions with some modifications. One judge dissented. Devers was tried in Tulsa County and found guilty of multiple charges involving sexual misconduct with teenage boys. The jury sentenced him to life imprisonment with fines after considering testimonies from three victims who claimed Devers offered them money to perform sexual acts. Despite some conflicting details regarding the timing of his proposal, the evidence against Devers was strong, including his own confession about some of the offenses. The appeal included several arguments. One claim was about the trial court's decision not to separate the charges for trial. The court maintained that the offenses were connected and reflected a consistent pattern of behavior, justifying their joint consideration. The court found no prejudice in trying the counts together. Devers also argued the jury was given incorrect instructions regarding the punishment for his indecent proposal charge. However, the court noted that the error did not change the outcome since he would have received the same sentence even under the correct guideline. Another point of appeal was regarding whether the jury was informed about parole eligibility. The court ruled the instructions were appropriate since the charges in question did not include those that required serving a certain percentage of the sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged that there was a mixing of punishment provisions in the instructions but decided any fines would be adjusted because of that error. Ultimately, after reviewing all claims, the court upheld the convictions but modified the fine amount for Devers' offenses. The judgment was affirmed with modifications, while one judge expressed disagreement with some aspects of the decision.