In OCCA case No. F-2002-492, Scott Lee Fox appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1509, Dontrell Maurice Baird appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of controlled dangerous substances, and possession of CDS without a tax stamp, as well as unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but required resentencing on the trafficking and possession charges, while upholding the sentence for the possession of drug paraphernalia. One judge dissented. Baird was convicted in the District Court of Payne County on multiple drug-related charges. The jury sentenced him to a total of 82 years in prison across four counts, with some sentences running concurrently and others consecutively. However, Baird appealed on several grounds, claiming that his right to due process was violated due to incorrect jury instructions on punishment, that evidence for some charges wasn't sufficient, and that his sentences were excessive. The court found that errors in the jury instructions affected the punishment range for three of the counts. Both Baird and the State agreed that the jury was not properly informed about the range of penalties for trafficking in cocaine base, possession of marijuana, and possession of CDS without a tax stamp. Baird's prior convictions complicated the appropriate classification of his current offenses, leading to confusion that the jury was not guided through properly. The court established that it would have been correct for the jury to be told about the proper punishment ranges, based on Baird's prior crimes. Given these mistakes in the instructions, the court decided to send the case back for resentencing on those counts without requiring a new trial. Despite Baird's claims that he was deprived of effective legal counsel, the court ruled that the issues raised concerning the jury instructions were enough to grant leniency in this case. The other claims, focusing on the sufficiency of evidence and whether the cumulative errors affected the trial's fairness, were found not to necessitate any further relief. Thus, the court upheld Baird's convictions but needed to correct the sentencing errors related to trafficking and possession charges, while confirming the sentence for unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia as appropriate.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-298, Edward Charles Scott appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of the motion to withdraw guilty pleas and remand the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Edward Charles Scott was charged with two counts of distributing drugs and one count of conspiring to distribute drugs in Stephens County. On November 19, 2001, he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to 40 years in prison for each count, with the sentences running at the same time, and he was also fined $2,500 for each count. Scott later filed a Motion to Withdraw the Plea, claiming that his lawyer did not help him properly. He had a hearing on this motion, but the court refused his request. Scott also filed other motions seeking to remove his guilty pleas and sought help for an appeal later on. The court allowed him an appeal out of time after concluding that his lawyer had not filed the appeal correctly. Scott raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the trial court should have given him a new lawyer when he claimed his lawyer wasn’t doing a good job. He also believed he should be allowed to take back his guilty pleas because he didn’t understand everything. He felt his prison sentence was too long and suggested the trial court did not check if he was really able to understand what he was pleading guilty to. Lastly, he argued that there was not enough proof that he was guilty of conspiracy. After reviewing everything, the court decided Scott did not show that his lawyer had a real conflict of interest. There was no evidence that Scott did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, as he admitted his guilt during the processes. The court noted that being unhappy with the length of his sentence was not a valid reason to withdraw a guilty plea. The court found some mixed statements about whether Scott was sentenced as a repeat offender or a first-time offender. These inconsistencies meant the case needed to go back to the lower court for a new sentencing. While the court thought the original inquiry into Scott’s mental competence could have been better, the records showed he was capable of understanding his charges and the guilty pleas he entered. The court also confirmed that there was a sufficient factual basis for the conspiracy plea. In the end, the court agreed with some points but decided Scott's case needed to return for resentencing due to the unclear basis for his sentence, even as they upheld the rejection of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-1348, Holly Ann Glasgow appealed her conviction for two counts of Robbery by Force and Fear. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on Count One and remand it to the district court to change the charge to Receiving Stolen Property with a reduced sentence. The conviction on Count Two was affirmed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-174, the appellant appealed her conviction for various crimes related to embezzlement and forgery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, which was suspended, meaning she would not go to prison immediately if she followed certain conditions. These conditions included paying back over $35,000 to the victim of her crimes as restitution, reporting to a probation officer, and not changing her residence without permission. In 1997, the state said the appellant broke the rules of her probation by failing to report to her probation officer, changing her residence without permission, and not paying her restitution as required. A judge found that she did violate her probation, but there were multiple delays in resolving her punishment, which lasted about four and a half years. In 2001, the appellant missed a court hearing, and the court issued a warrant for her arrest. After her arrest in January 2002, a final hearing took place where the judge ordered her to serve the full five years of her sentences and added extra fees for sheriff's costs. The appellant then appealed this decision, proposing several arguments against the court's order: 1. She argued that the sheriff's fees were imposed unlawfully and violated her rights. 2. She claimed the restitution amount was uncertain and should not be required. 3. She believed the court could not revoke her suspended sentence after such a long time. 4. She felt her due process rights were violated because the imposed punishment was excessive. After reviewing the case, the court agreed with some of the appellant's points. It decided that the sheriff's fees were not legally appropriate because they cannot be added after a sentence has been given. They also found that appellant’s arguments about the restitution were too late because those challenges should have been made back in 1995 when the restitution was set. However, the court did agree with the appellant that it was too long between when she was sentenced and when her probation was revoked; thus, they ordered that her two five-year sentences should run at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other (consecutively). In conclusion, the court modified the earlier order by removing the sheriff's fees and adjusted how long the appellant would be imprisoned.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1339, Marlon L. Johnson appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Rape and remand it to the district court for dismissal, while affirming the convictions for Kidnapping and Forcible Sodomy. One judge dissented. The case began when Marlon L. Johnson was found guilty of three serious crimes after a jury trial in Tulsa County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years for each crime, to be served one after the other, totaling a significant amount of time. Johnson claimed that there were many mistakes made during his trial, which he believed should lead to a reversal of his convictions or a new trial. The court looked at the arguments Johnson made. He said the charges were mixed up and that it wasn't clear whether the jury agreed on the specific facts for the rape charge. The court agreed that the jury might have relied on different facts to reach their decision about the rape charge, so they reversed that conviction. However, the court felt that there was enough evidence to support the kidnapping conviction, meaning they believed the jury was right about that part. Johnson also argued that his lawyer didn't do a good job, but the court felt his lawyer performed effectively. Other arguments made by Johnson, like improper statements from the prosecutor and issues with sentencing, were not enough to change the overall decision. The court decided that some mistakes were made, but they were not serious enough to hurt Johnson's chances for a fair trial. In the end, the court confirmed the kidnapping and forcible sodomy convictions because they believed the jury made the right decisions for those charges. However, because they couldn't be sure about the rape charge, they sent it back to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-999, Eric Jackson Davis appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions but reversed one of them due to lack of sufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented regarding the decision on sentencing. Davis was found guilty by a jury of five counts of First Degree Rape, two counts of Lewd Molestation, and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. The trial took place over three days, and the jury decided on punishments ranging from ten to fifty years for the various counts. The judge announced that Davis's sentences would be served one after the other, known as consecutive sentences. Davis raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that there was no evidence proving that a sexual act occurred in the case of the Forcible Oral Sodomy charge, and therefore he asked for that conviction to be overturned. Second, he claimed that there was insufficient evidence for one of the rape counts and wanted it dismissed as well. Lastly, he argued that receiving a total of two hundred forty years in prison was too severe. After looking at the facts and evidence from the trial, the court found that most of the convictions were supported by enough evidence. However, they agreed that one rape conviction should be reversed because the prosecution did not present enough proof to support that specific charge. The court did not find merit in the argument about the Forcible Oral Sodomy conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged that different factors should be considered when deciding if a sentence is too harsh. While they found the trial judge's refusal to consider running the sentences at the same time was wrong, they stated that the judge's personal views about sex crimes against children influenced that decision. Therefore, the case was sent back to the lower court for resentencing, but the main convictions were upheld. In summary, the court upheld the majority of Davis's convictions and ordered the court below to reconsider how the sentences were issued, while they reversed one specific conviction due to a lack of evidence. One judge disagreed with the need for a new sentencing hearing, believing that the consequences should remain as they are given the serious nature of the crimes.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1061, Gibbs appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second or Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to eight years in prison. One judge dissented. Gibbs was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years, along with a fine and recommended counseling. Gibbs argued that the evidence against him wasn't enough to convict him. However, the court found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. Gibbs' defense claimed he wasn’t driving under the influence; he said his car’s accelerator stuck and that someone gave him a ride home. He also stated that his sister saw him drinking at home. The prosecutor, during the trial, made errors when questioning Gibbs about the burden of proof and his rights. Even though there were issues with the prosecutor's comments, the court believed these mistakes did not greatly affect the overall outcome of the case. While the conviction remained, the court decided to lessen Gibbs' sentence due to the errors noted during the trial.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-652, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Second Degree Burglary, First Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, Larceny of an Automobile, and Robbery with a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal in part by modifying some of his sentences. However, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences for the other offenses. One judge dissented from the decision.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-962, Chester Creller, Sr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Incest. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy but reversed the conviction for Incest. One judge dissented. Creller was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses in a trial in Muskogee County. The jury decided on heavy punishments for the crimes: 100 years for Rape, 20 years for Oral Sodomy, and 10 years for Incest. The judge planned for the sentences for Rape and Oral Sodomy to be served one after the other, while the Incest sentence would happen at the same time as the Rape sentence. Creller took his case to a higher court, arguing several points. He claimed that the court should not have tried his case, that changes made to the case were unfair, that there were problems with how the victim's testimony was used, that he should not have been convicted of both Rape and Incest for the same act, and that the way evidence was handled did not guarantee him a fair trial. The higher court carefully looked over all the arguments and decided that Creller's claim about his convictions for Rape and Incest being based on the same action was valid. Therefore, they overturned the Incest conviction but found that the other points he raised did not change the overall outcome. The court confirmed that the trial was handled correctly in most ways and said that even though there were some mistakes, they did not affect the right decision because there was strong evidence against Creller. The decision also stated that the prosecution's closing arguments did not unfairly influence the jury because the defense did not object during the trial. In summary, Creller's sentence for Incest was dismissed, but he still faced very long sentences for the other charges.
In OCCA case No. F-01-1338, Henderson appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) and Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Substance but dismissed the Conspiracy charge. One judge dissented. Henderson was found guilty by a jury of distributing cocaine and conspiracy to distribute it. The jury recommended a total sentence of thirty-five years for each count, to be served one after the other, along with a hefty fine. On appeal, Henderson raised several issues. He argued that his two convictions were unfair because they were based on the same act, leading to double punishment, which is not allowed. The court agreed with this point and dismissed the conspiracy conviction. The court noted that even though a conspiracy usually stands as a separate crime, in this case, the charges were very closely related and relied on the same actions. Because of this, the law was not followed correctly. While Henderson's other claims about the trial were considered, the judges found them to lack enough merit to change the outcome. The court concluded that enough evidence supported his conviction for distributing cocaine, so that part of the case remained in place, while the conspiracy charge was dropped. Overall, the final decision was that the court upheld the guilty verdict for distribution but reversed the conspiracy conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-122, Joseph Edward Peyton appealed his conviction for five counts of Robbery With Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for Counts I and III, but reverse and dismiss Counts II, IV, and V. One member of the court dissented. Peyton was tried and found guilty of the robbery charges in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to ten years for Counts I and III, and five years for Counts II, IV, and V, with the sentences running consecutively. Peyton argued three main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that his statements to the police should not have been used against him because he was not in custody when he made them. The court found that the situation did not need Miranda warnings, so his statements were allowed as evidence. Second, Peyton argued that there wasn't enough evidence for his convictions on Counts II, IV, and V. The court agreed, stating that just being at the crime scene does not automatically make someone guilty. They found that the evidence against Peyton for those specific counts was not solid enough, and they reversed those convictions. Lastly, Peyton argued that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court disagreed, saying the sentence was appropriate and did not shock their conscience. In summary, the court upheld part of the conviction, but also recognized that not all the evidence supported Peyton's guilt on every count. The decisions made reflected careful consideration of what the law required in these types of cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-793, Robert Dale Marlow appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Rape, Forcible Sodomy, and First Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of the convictions to Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation and also modified the sentences for the remaining convictions. One judge dissented. Marlow was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses. The jury decided to give him a very long punishment of 100 years for each of the five crimes, which they all ran one after the other, making a total of 500 years. In the appeal, Marlow pointed out several issues with his trial. First, he argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because the judge allowed the jury to hear about another crime that wasn’t related to what he was accused of. This might have made the jury think he was a bad person and influenced their decision. Second, he said the jury was not properly instructed about one of the charges. The charge of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation did not include an important detail about “bodily harm.” Because of this, the court acknowledged that he should have been found guilty of a lesser crime instead. They also talked about how the prosecutor brought in information about other incidents that happened at a different time, which they believed could confuse the jury and affect the fairness of the trial. After looking carefully at everything, the court decided that the conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation should be changed to Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation, and they gave him a new sentence of 20 years for this crime. The other convictions were kept but the sentences were reduced to 40 years each for the remaining counts. All of the sentences will still be served one after the other. This review shows how important it is for trials to be fair, with accurate charges and instructions provided to the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1170, Willie West King, Jr. appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation of a Child Under Sixteen Years Old. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Count I but reversed the conviction for Count II with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence for Count I, suggesting it should be modified to 20 years. Willie West King, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of two counts of lewd molestation after a trial in Texas County. The jury gave a punishment of 65 years for each count, and these sentences were to be served one after the other. King appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he claimed that the jury instruction on the crime had a serious mistake because it left out an important part that should have been included. However, the court found that even though this was a mistake, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial because other parts of the instructions were clear. Second, King argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the second count against him. The court agreed, saying that the evidence really showed an attempt rather than a completed act of lewdness. Therefore, they reversed that part of the conviction and said it should be dismissed. Third, King felt that the court should have told the jury they needed to have another witness to back up the victim's claim. The court disagreed, stating that the victim’s testimony was believable, and did not need another person to support it. Fourth, King thought that the jury should have been informed he would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found that this wasn’t necessary in this case because the law didn’t require it. They also decided that the prosecutor’s comments during the trial didn’t unfairly influence the jury’s decision. Fifth, King raised a concern about evidence from Texas being allowed in without proper proof. However, the court found that the evidence was correctly shown as valid. Lastly, King argued that all the mistakes in his trial together made it unfair for him. The court concluded that while there were some errors, they were not serious enough to have denied him a fair trial. In summary, the court upheld King’s conviction on Count I but found that Count II was not supported by enough evidence, so it was reversed and dismissed. One judge disagreed with the long sentence for Count I, believing it was too harsh and should be lowered to 20 years instead of 65 years.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1120, Mitchell Wayne Pate appealed his conviction for Felony Omission to Provide for a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. The State agreed that the appeal had merit, and the court changed the previous decision to state that only one year and six months of Pate's suspended sentence is revoked.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-873, Jerome Wade Hennesy appealed his conviction for Trafficking in a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine Base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. In this case, Jerome Wade Hennesy was found guilty of trafficking cocaine by a jury. The jury decided he should serve ten years in prison and pay a fine of $25,000. Hennesy appealed, arguing that the evidence used against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt and that there was unfair evidence related to other crimes. The court agreed with Hennesy on the second point about the unfair evidence, saying it was a serious mistake that affected the trial. The judges mentioned that since the evidence against him was mostly based on circumstances and not very strong, the mistake couldn't be ignored. They decided that Hennesy needed a new trial, so he could have a fair chance to defend himself. The judges noted that the first point about whether the evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt was no longer important because they were giving him a new trial based on the unfair evidence. They expected the state to have stronger evidence if Hennesy was tried again. So, they made the decision to reverse the previous judgment and order a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-231, Mark Eugene Smith appealed his conviction for Attempted Manufacture of Methamphetamine, Driving under Suspension, Possession of a Controlled Drug, and Possession of a Precursor Substance Without a Permit. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences on the charges of Attempted Manufacture of Methamphetamine, Driving under Suspension, and Possession of a Controlled Drug. However, the court reversed and dismissed the conviction for Possession of a Precursor Substance Without a Permit and the related fine. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-465, Tashiro Rudy Tillman appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction on the drug charge but vacated the sentence for that charge, requiring resentencing. The conviction for obstructing an officer was upheld. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, #1 appealed his conviction for #Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #the case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. #2 dissented. Summary: The appellant, a person accused of writing bad checks, entered a plea in 1995 but later faced problems with following court rules. She was supposed to pay money back for the checks she wrote, but she didn't pay all of it. Over the years, the state said she had not done what she needed to do, like meeting with a probation officer and paying fees. As a result, her sentence was changed and she spent time in jail. The appellant had two cases against her. The first case involved writing four bad checks totaling $140, but she was told to pay back over $6,000, which she felt was too much. She argued that the court should not make her pay for other checks she wasn't charged with. The second case involved her admitting guilt for a poor check and being given jail time that was suspended, meaning she wouldn't go to jail unless she misbehaved. But the state also said she didn’t follow the rules connected to this case. During the hearings, the court decided she had broken the rules, leading to her jail time and fees. The key issues in her appeal were whether she should pay restitution for other checks and whether the amounts charged were fair. The court found that the records were unclear, so they sent the case back to get more facts about how much she really owed and if she could pay it back without it being a big problem for her or her family. The court needed to figure out three main things: why she had to pay for checks she wasn't charged with, if she could pay without hardship, and the correct amount she actually owed. The other point brought up was whether the fees for being in jail were too high and if the way those fees were charged followed the law. In conclusion, the court said the lower court needs to look at these issues again to make sure everything is fair.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649, RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for revoking a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of the suspended sentences but instructed the lower court to correct the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved an individual who had previously been convicted of pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he did not have to go to jail right away if he followed the rules set by the court. Unfortunately, the appellant broke several of these rules, which led to the first part of his suspended sentence being revoked after five years. Later, he committed new offenses while still on probation, including not reporting to his probation officer and testing positive for drugs. Because of these additional violations, the state filed applications to revoke the remainder of his suspended sentence. In court hearings, the appellant was given chances to show he could follow the rules, but he did not meet the requirements set by the court, leading to the revocation of both suspended sentences. The court found there was enough evidence to show he had violated his probation. However, the appellant argued that the court made a mistake by sentencing him to serve a full five years in one part of his case when he had less than five years left. The state agreed with this point, and the appeals court ruled to correct the time he should actually serve. Overall, the court decided that the revocation was justified due to multiple violations. The case shows the importance of following court rules after a suspended sentence is given.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-352, Virgil Clayton Rose appealed his conviction for several crimes, including the manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, possession of a firearm while committing a felony, and concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court found that some of these convictions violated rules against being punished twice for the same crime. The court agreed with the appeal and reversed the convictions for possession of methamphetamine and the precursor substance. The court modified the sentence for possession of a firearm while committing a felony to five years. One judge disagreed with the decision on certain points but agreed with the overall outcome.
In OCCA case No. C-2001-537, a person appealed his conviction for possession of controlled substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the counts while keeping the other counts affirmed. One judge dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The plea agreement allowed for a one-year suspended sentence if he completed a drug court program. However, he later violated the terms of this agreement by using drugs again and not attending the required sessions, leading to a longer sentence. After the court sentenced him to a total of 21 years in prison for the remaining counts, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He argued he did not fully understand what he was agreeing to, specifically the length of his sentences and various conditions. In reviewing the case, the court found a significant issue with the individual's dual convictions for possessing two kinds of drugs at the same time, which they ruled could violate double jeopardy rules. They agreed with part of his appeal and reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana, while affirming the other two convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-46, Harold Edward McHam appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Kidnapping and affirm the conviction for Indecent Proposal. One judge dissented regarding the Kidnapping conviction. Harold McHam was found guilty in a trial that took place from October 10 to October 12, 2000, in Choctaw County District Court. He was convicted of two charges: Kidnapping and Indecent Proposal. The jury sentenced him to one year in prison for each count, and the sentences were set to be served one after the other. The judge also ordered McHam to pay $1,000 in incarceration fees for his time spent in jail. McHam raised several concerns during his appeal. First, he argued that the incarceration fees imposed on him violated his rights because they were not calculated according to the law. The court found that the trial judge did not show how the $1,000 fee was determined, and whether it would create hardship for McHam and his family. Thus, the fees were removed and the case was sent back to the district court to handle the fees properly. Second, McHam claimed there was not enough evidence to prove he kidnapped anyone. The court agreed, stating that a key part of the kidnapping charge was not supported by enough proof. The court saw that the evidence didn’t clearly show that McHam meant to secretly keep anyone confined against their will. Therefore, his Kidnapping conviction was overturned. Finally, McHam also argued that the punishment he received was too harsh. However, this point did not need to be discussed because the Kidnapping conviction was already reversed. On the other hand, the court upheld the conviction for Indecent Proposal, stating that there was enough evidence for that charge. In summary, the court decided to dismiss the Kidnapping charge, keep the Indecent Proposal charge, and take another look at the fees McHam was ordered to pay.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-1339, Harold Lee Cooper, Jr. appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court affirmed his conviction for possession of cocaine but reversed and dismissed the conviction for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented.