Sentencing Provisions

RE-2017-149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2017-149, the appellant appealed his conviction for Escape from Arrest, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and Domestic Assault and Battery Against a Pregnant Woman. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking the appellant's suspended sentences but required the lower court to remove the post-imprisonment supervision from its orders. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, after entering guilty pleas to several charges, was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, which was suspended under certain conditions including probation. However, he failed to follow the rules of his probation, leading to a motion by the State to revoke his suspended sentences. The hearing revealed that the appellant initially reported to his probation officer but stopped when he learned about potential violation reports. At the hearing, the appellant indicated he wanted help for his struggles with drugs and alcohol and had a job and place to live, which he thought should allow him another chance at probation. However, the judge found that the appellant had a history of not following rules in the past and thus decided to revoke his suspension entirely. The court determined that the judge had a valid reason based on the evidence to revoke the probation. However, the judge made an error by adding a provision for post-imprisonment supervision that was not part of the original sentence. The court ordered that this part be removed from the revocation orders but kept the decision to revoke the suspended sentences.

Continue ReadingRE-2017-149

S-2012-719

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-719, Robert Brooke appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Transporting an Open Bottle or Container of Liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order deferring judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Robert Brooke was charged with DUI and another alcohol-related offense. He entered a guilty plea but had a disagreement about whether he must serve time in jail or undergo inpatient treatment. The lower court decided to defer his sentencing for five years and found that the law requiring jail time or inpatient treatment was not enforceable in this situation. The state argued that the law clearly required jail time or inpatient treatment since it was Brooke's second DUI-related charge. However, the court explained that since a plea deal did not count as a conviction, the conditions related to jail or treatment did not apply. Instead, they found that Brooke should follow the recommendations given from his alcohol assessment, which included certain programs, rather than being required to serve time. The court looked closely at the wording of the law and decided that the terms about jail time only apply when there is a conviction. Since they did not convict Brooke but only deferred his sentencing, those specific requirements did not apply to him. The court also mentioned that while the law could be seen as constitutional, it did not matter in this case since they determined it was not applicable. Thus, they upheld the lower court's decision, allowing Brooke to complete the programs without being sentenced to time in jail. The final judgment was to affirm the decision of the District Court, allowing Brooke to follow through with the treatment required instead of serving jail time.

Continue ReadingS-2012-719

C-2010-1059

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-1059, Karen Deborah Smith appealed her conviction for Enabling Sexual Abuse of a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her petition and remand the case to the district court for a proper hearing on her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. One judge dissented. Petitioner, Karen Deborah Smith, was charged with two counts of enabling sexual abuse of a minor child in Tulsa County. She entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to five years in prison, with two years suspended on each count, serving the sentences at the same time. Later, she requested to withdraw her guilty plea, but her request was denied after a hearing. In her appeal, Smith raised several arguments. She claimed she should be allowed to withdraw her plea because there was no strong reason for her to accept it, especially since an 11-year-old was involved, and he was not actually responsible for the care and safety of the children. She argued that she did not have complete understanding of her situation when she entered her plea because she wasn't informed enough about the 85 percent requirement linked to her charges. She said her lawyer didn't properly explain everything to her and that there was a conflict of interests because the same lawyer represented her during both the plea and the withdrawal request. The court looked carefully at her claims and agreed that she might not have received fair legal help when she tried to withdraw her plea because the same lawyer represented her both when she made her plea and when she wanted to change it. The judge recognized that the lawyer might not have done his best job during the withdrawal hearing since he could not argue against his own previous actions. The court decided to grant Smith's request and ordered her case to be sent back to the district court for another hearing. This time, the court instructed that she should have a different lawyer who did not have previous connections to her case, ensuring she would have fair representation. In summary, the court took action to make sure that Smith's rights were protected, and it wanted to ensure she had a fair chance to address her situation properly. The dissenting opinion noted disagreement with the court’s decision, believing that Smith had been properly informed and had made a voluntary decision regarding her plea, and no actual conflict or prejudice had been shown.

Continue ReadingC-2010-1059

F-2007-200

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.

Continue ReadingF-2007-200

F-2004-1106

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-04-1106, Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful trafficking in cocaine base, amongst other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the fine associated with one of the charges. One judge dissented. Armstrong was found guilty of a series of crimes, including trafficking drugs and resisting arrest. He argued that there were mistakes made during his trial, such as the jury being instructed on two counts of resisting arrest when he believed there should only be one. He also claimed that his attorney didn’t provide enough evidence to support his case effectively. He asked the court to reduce his sentences and fine. After reviewing everything about the case, the court felt that there was no need to overturn the convictions. However, they agreed to reduce the fine related to his drug trafficking charge from $25,000 to $10,000. The court found that the evidence and decisions made during the trial were legally sound. In summary, while Armstrong’s appeal raised several issues, the court mostly found in favor of the original trial's outcome, except for the adjustment of the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1106