In OCCA case No. F-2014-931, Jeffrey Tallon appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed the sentences and ordered resentencing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-973, Nick Rodriguez appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony), and Driving with License Revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for Driving Under the Influence with Great Bodily Injury and Driving with License Revoked but to reverse and dismiss the conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (Subsequent Felony). One justice dissented. Rodriguez was charged in Garfield County after entering a plea of nolo contendre, which means he did not contest the charges. He was sentenced to 10 years for each of the first two counts, which were to be served one after the other, while he received a one-year sentence for the last count, to be served at the same time as one of the other sentences. Rodriguez later asked to withdraw his pleas, but the court denied his application. He claimed his appeals were based on four main points: 1) that he should not have been punished for both charges of DUI because it was against the rules, 2) that he did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, 3) that he did not get good help from his lawyer, and 4) that his sentence was too harsh. The court reviewed his arguments. For the first point, they noted that Rodriguez didn't mention this issue when he first asked to withdraw his pleas, so they couldn't consider it now. The court also found that Rodriguez's pleas were made voluntarily, meaning he understood what he had done. His argument about not having a good lawyer was accepted partly because the lawyer had not raised the double punishment issue. In the end, the court decided to keep the first and third convictions but agreed to toss out the second conviction because it was unfair to punish him twice for the same action. However, they determined that the remaining sentences were suitable based on the situation, meaning they found no reason to change them. Through this decision, the court tried to ensure fairness and that justice was served correctly in the case against Rodriguez.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-997, Johnny Freddy Locust appealed his conviction for burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed the judgment but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented in part, expressing disagreement with the court's decision to modify the sentence without it being raised in the appeal. Johnny Freddy Locust was found guilty by a jury for breaking into a building without permission. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison and a fine after the trial judge decided his punishment. Locust appealed, saying that the trial had mistakes. He argued that the instructions given to the jury were wrong and that the evidence did not prove he was guilty. He also claimed his lawyer did not do a good job defending him, and that overall, the errors during the trial meant that he did not get a fair chance. During the appeal, the court looked closely at what Locust's arguments were and reviewed the evidence from his trial. They found that while there was a mistake in not giving the jury proper instructions about consent, this mistake did not change the outcome of the trial. They agreed that even though the instructions were important, Locust still had enough evidence against him to be found guilty. The court also said that even though his lawyer could have done better by not asking for the right instructions, this did not likely change the trial's final result. In the end, they decided to lower his prison sentence from twenty years to fifteen years. The judgment against him for breaking and entering remained the same, and he still had to pay the fine. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentence because it was not an issue brought up during the appeal, believing that the matter had been overlooked. Overall, Locust's appeal led to a shorter prison term, but his conviction still stood.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-493, Donnell E. Williams appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Williams was found guilty by a jury of breaking into a place that was not his and hiding things that were stolen. The jury recommended a punishment of twenty-five years in prison for each count, with the need to serve all the punishment one after the other. Williams argued several points in his appeal. First, he said that the court did not tell the jury they could consider that he might have had permission to enter the property. Second, he thought the jury should have been told about a lesser crime than burglary. Third, he claimed that the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. Fourth, he felt that his twenty-five-year sentences were too long. Finally, he believed that all the mistakes made during the trial, when added together, meant he did not have a fair chance in court. After looking at everything in the case, the court found that Williams's points for appeal did not require them to change the jury's decision on his guilt. They agreed that the jury did not need information on asking if he had consent or the lesser charge since there was no strong evidence to support his claims. They also concluded that the prosecutor's actions did not prevent Williams from getting a fair trial because there was strong evidence against him. However, the court felt that making Williams serve his sentences one after the other was too severe, especially because he was living in a vacant house and facing challenges like being homeless and struggling with substance use. They decided that twenty-five years was enough time for him to pay for what he did and get the help he might need. In short, the court kept his convictions but changed his sentence so that he would serve his time together rather than separately. This way, he would have a better chance to start again after serving his time. One judge disagreed with the decision to change the sentences to run together, believing the original decision by the trial court was correct given Williams's history of prior convictions.