Specific Statute Archives

F-2018-678

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 21, 2019
Post category:F

The decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the conviction of Kenneth Oliver Ross for multiple offenses, including lewd molestation and human trafficking of a minor. The court meticulously addressed each of the twelve propositions of error raised by the appellant in their appeal. 1. **Double Punishment**: The court found no double jeopardy in the separate counts of lewd molestation, as they described distinct acts of abuse. 2. **Charge Appropriateness**: The court ruled that human trafficking was properly charged, as the prosecutor had discretion in choosing the relevant statutes. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence**: Both propositions regarding the sufficiency of evidence for human trafficking were denied, with the court stating that isolated incidents could constitute the crime. 4. **Jury Instructions**: The court upheld the jury instructions given, finding no error in how the law was communicated to the jury. 5. **Ex Post Facto Claims**: The court found no ex post facto violation, indicating that ignorance of the victim's age was not a defense to the charges. 6. **Lesser Included Offenses**: The court ruled that the lack of request for certain lesser-included offense instructions meant review would be under plain error, which the court did not find. 7. **Statutory Clarity**: Propositions regarding the constitutionality and vagueness of the human trafficking statute were denied, with the court upholding the statute's clarity and application. 8. **Sentence Severity**: The court concluded that the 50-year sentence for human trafficking was not shockingly excessive based on the evidence presented. 9. **Cumulative Error**: The final proposition regarding cumulative error was also denied as no individual errors were found. Overall, the appellate court found no merit in any of the propositions and affirmed the original sentence handed down by the district court. The case illustrates the court's rigorous examination of statutory interpretation, jury instructions, evidentiary sufficiency, and statutory vagueness concerns in criminal appeals.

F-2009-1002

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 10, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-1002, Rickey Dewayne Prince appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including possession of child pornography, lewd molestation, and first-degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify some of his sentences but upheld his convictions. One judge dissented. Rickey Dewayne Prince faced a jury trial where he was found guilty on multiple counts related to child exploitation and abuse. His punishment included lengthy prison sentences, with certain counts requiring him to serve them consecutively, leading to a total of many years behind bars. After the trial, Prince raised several arguments in his appeal. He claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to various reasons. These included improper support for the victims' testimonies by a nurse, errors in how the charges were brought, issues regarding the admission of his own statements to police, and claims about his lawyer not doing a good enough job defending him. The court reviewed these points carefully. They found that while some mistakes occurred, like using the wrong statute for charging possession of child pornography, the overall outcome of the trial was justified. The judges believed that the evidence presented during the trial strongly supported Prince's convictions, even without additional corroborating details from other sources. In some points of his appeal, Prince's arguments were dismissed because he did not raise them in time during the trial, which limited how much the court could consider his issues. They also decided that any errors that did happen were not serious enough to change the trial's verdict or give him the right to a new trial. As a result, while some of Prince's sentences were adjusted to be less severe, the court affirmed many of his convictions for serious crimes against children, keeping him under a long prison sentence for his actions. The court made changes to the official records to properly reflect the legal basis for his convictions while confirming that he did not face unfair treatment during his trial.

S-2009-719

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 22, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-719, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision, which had quashed the felony charge. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Doyle was charged with multiple offenses, including a second DUI, after a traffic incident on April 1, 2001. Initially, the state claimed Doyle had a prior DUI conviction from June 17, 1998, which would elevate his charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, Doyle's attorney argued that since more than ten years had passed since the 1998 conviction, this should not be treated as a felony charge under Oklahoma law. After entertaining arguments from both sides, the special judge ruled in favor of Doyle, stating that because of the ten-year rule, the state could not pursue a felony charge against him. The state then appealed the decision. The core of the argument revolved around the interpretation of statutes related to DUI offenses. The state believed that the existing law allowed them to enhance the charge based on the earlier conviction if the DUI was committed within ten years, regardless of the conviction date. Meanwhile, Doyle maintained that his prior conviction had to occur within ten years of the new charge in order for it to be considered a felony. The reviewing district court confirmed the special judge's ruling, concluding that the law explicitly states convicted and not merely committed, meaning that for enhancement to apply, Doyle's prior conviction must have occurred within the ten-year timeframe, which was not the case here. Ultimately, the court found in favor of Doyle, maintaining that the specific statutes dealing with DUI enhancement supported his case. The court's opinion affirmed the lower court's decision to quash the supplemental information that would have allowed for the felony charge to proceed. A member of the court disagreed with this conclusion and expressed dissent.

C-2007-829

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 13, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-829, Jeffery L. Jinks appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. To explain a bit more: Jeffery Jinks pleaded guilty to the crime of Child Sexual Abuse in a district court. The judge accepted his plea and wanted a report to see what his sentence should be. Before he was sentenced, Jinks wanted to take back his plea but the court said no. During his sentencing, he was given a very long sentence of 35 years in prison, with most of that being suspended. This means that he would only serve part of the sentence unless he did something wrong again. Jinks then asked again to take back his plea after the sentencing, but once more the district court said no. After appealing, the court looked at a few important questions: If Jinks really understood what pleading guilty meant, if it was fair for him to be charged as he was, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court decided that Jinks understood his plea and that it was not unfair for him to be charged under the law. However, they did think his sentence was too harsh given his background and decided to change it from 35 years to 20 years in prison, reducing the time he would actually have to serve. So, overall, the court agreed Jinks did something wrong and upheld his conviction but thought the punishment needed to be lighter.

F 2000-740

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 6, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-740, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted Escape. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified the sentence from three and a half years to two years imprisonment. Two judges dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case involved the appellant trying to escape from a private prison that was not officially recognized as a penitentiary. The court determined that the appellant should have been charged under a specific law concerning attempted escapes from non-penitentiary facilities. After reviewing the case, the judges concluded that while the conviction was valid, the original sentence was excessive since the appropriate law related to his actions was different than what was originally applied.