Specific Intent

F-2018-39

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-39, Robert Ephriam Smith appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentencing of life imprisonment on both counts, which were to run consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Ephriam Smith was found guilty by a jury for abusing two children. The jury suggested that he should spend his life in prison for the acts he committed. The trial judge agreed and stated that Smith would serve his sentences one after the other. Smith raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that the instructions given to the jury were confusing. He believed they did not clearly explain what the jury needed to decide for his charges. He also said that evidence presented against him was unfair because it included things that weren't related to the case and might have made the jury feel negatively toward him. The judge's comments during the trial were also a point of concern for Smith. He thought the judge showed support for the young witnesses, which might have influenced the jury’s opinion unfairly. Moreover, he argued that notes from the forensic examiner and testimonies from his former step-daughter, who said he abused her when she was young, should not have been allowed as they added to the unfairness of the trial. Smith also argued that the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was not appropriate and might have made it harder for him to get a fair trial. He thought that these methods used by the prosecutor could have led the jury to make a decision out of anger instead of focusing only on the facts. When it came to his lawyer, Smith claimed that his defense was weak and did not raise objections when they should have. He thought this lack of action harmed his case. However, the court decided that since no major errors were found in the trial, his lawyer’s performance could not be considered ineffective. In the end, the court found no grounds to change the original decision. They determined that the trial was fair despite Smith's complaints, and his life sentences would remain. The mandate for this decision was ordered to be issued immediately.

Continue ReadingF-2018-39

F-2018-15

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-15, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of drugs causing great bodily injury, felony eluding, running a roadblock, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. The case involved Marcus Ray Smith, who was found guilty in a non-jury trial of several serious offenses related to a high-speed police chase. The judge sentenced Smith to ten years for some crimes and thirty years for others, but with some time suspended, allowing for parole. Smith appealed for multiple reasons. He argued that he was being punished too harshly for actions that were part of one event. According to the law, people usually can't be punished multiple times for the same act. However, the court found that the crimes he committed were separate incidents. For example, running a roadblock is recognized as a distinct crime, and his actions while fleeing from the police qualified as two separate acts that endangered others. Smith also claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he had intended to cause harm with his vehicle when he drove recklessly towards others. The court disagreed and stated that the way he drove clearly showed that he intended to hurt someone. Lastly, Smith said his lawyer didn't do a good job by not arguing about the double punishment issue during the trial. However, the court found that since his double punishment claim was not valid, there was no failure on his lawyer's part. In conclusion, the court upheld Smith's convictions, deciding he had received a fair trial and that his legal arguments were not strong enough to change the outcome.

Continue ReadingF-2018-15

J-2014-326

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2014-326, J.L. appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Carrying a Dangerous Weapon on School Property. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm J.L.’s adjudication of delinquency. One judge dissented. The case began when a petition was filed against J.L. on August 16, 2013, highlighting the two charges. The lower court found J.L. delinquent on April 8, 2014. J.L. argued that the evidence was not enough to show that he intended to harm someone. He also claimed that there wasn’t proof that the knife he had was indeed a dangerous weapon against school rules and that the judge acted like a prosecutor instead of remaining neutral. The court looked at the evidence closely. They needed to see if any reasonable person could find J.L. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite some conflicting testimony about the events, the evidence presented was enough to support the conclusion that J.L. committed an assault with a dangerous weapon. Regarding J.L.'s second point about the knife, the court determined that photographs provided were adequate to prove that it was a prohibited weapon on school grounds. In the third argument, J.L. said the judge did not stay neutral when he handled the knife in court. The judge asked someone to bring in the knife and then had J.L. confirm that the knife shown was similar to his. Since J.L. didn’t object to this during the trial, he could not complain about it later unless he could prove it was a serious mistake. The court explained that J.L. had to show that there was a real error that changed the outcome of the case. Since he couldn’t show this, the court decided not to take action on his claims. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision that J.L. was delinquent for the charges against him. The opinion concluded with directions for the lower court to adjust one of the charges to a lesser offense.

Continue ReadingJ-2014-326

J 2013-0130

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2013-0130, D.I.S. appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order adjudicating D.I.S. as a delinquent child and remand the matter to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. This case began when a Juvenile Petition was filed on July 25, 2012, against D.I.S., who was just 14 years old. He was charged with three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Pontotoc County. After a hearing on February 5, 2013, the judge found that D.I.S. had committed the offenses and declared him a delinquent child. He was ordered to stay with his mother under supervision until another court hearing about his situation. D.I.S. appealed this decision, arguing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he used a dangerous weapon, or that he had intent to cause serious harm. The law requires that to be declared a delinquent child, the evidence must clearly show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals court agreed with D.I.S. and said that the evidence was not sufficient to support the idea that he was guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Therefore, they reversed the previous ruling and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case against him. The case was important because it highlighted the need for strong evidence when judging a child in the juvenile justice system. The court made it clear that if the facts aren’t strong enough, they cannot find a child guilty of serious charges. This ruling protects the rights of young people by ensuring they are only judged based on solid evidence.

Continue ReadingJ 2013-0130

C-2003-1247

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-1247, Robert Hershal Perkis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reverse the kidnapping conviction, and modify the burglary conviction to second-degree burglary. One judge dissented on the kidnapping aspect. Robert Hershal Perkis was charged with three serious crimes: robbery using a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and first-degree burglary. He pleaded nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison for these crimes, with the sentences running one after the other, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution. Later, Perkis filed an application to withdraw his guilty pleas, stating that his pleas were not supported by enough evidence, that the sentences were too harsh, and that he did not receive good help from his lawyer. The court looked into these claims and first examined if the pleas were based on sufficient evidence. For the robbery charge, the court found that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon and had property taken from him, which satisfied the elements of robbery. Thus, the court upheld Perkis' conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In looking at the kidnapping charge, the court considered the facts surrounding the incident. The victim was taken to a field and held there by Perkis and others. The central issue was whether the confinement of the victim could be considered “secret.” The court decided that because the victim was in a public area, it did not meet the legal definition of secret confinement, which led to the reversal of the kidnapping conviction. Regarding the burglary charge, the court found that while there were issues concerning the evidence for first-degree burglary, it chose to modify the conviction to second-degree burglary instead, giving Perkis a shorter sentence for that conviction. Overall, the court's opinion granted some relief to Perkis by reversing one conviction and modifying another, but kept the robbery conviction intact. The dissenting judge felt that the kidnapping conviction should stand, arguing that the facts should be considered as a case of secret confinement.

Continue ReadingC-2003-1247

F-2003-257

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-257, Gregory Kyle Malone appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary and Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Burglary but affirmed the conviction for Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. One judge dissented. Malone was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison for burglary and forty years in prison for robbery. During the trial, he argued that there were mistakes made, including incorrect jury instructions and insufficient evidence for the burglary charge. Malone claimed the court made an error by allowing the jury to convict him based on instructions that included an offense he wasn’t charged with. The burglary charge required proof that he intended to commit robbery or assault when he broke into the house, but the jury was given broader instructions that didn't align with the specifics of his charge. This was seen as a violation of his rights, as he should have been able to defend against the exact crime he was accused of. The court agreed with Malone on this point, determining that the trial court had provided wrong instructions that could have influenced the jury's decision. As a result, they reversed the conviction for First Degree Burglary. However, they affirmed the conviction for Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon, finding that the evidence against him was strong enough for that charge. In conclusion, the court reversed the first charge of First Degree Burglary and kept the second charge of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon, which meant Malone would go back to court for the burglary charge.

Continue ReadingF-2003-257