State

F-2021-1220

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-1220, Aaron Struble appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the case for resentencing to fifty years imprisonment, as originally assessed by the jury. One judge dissented. Struble was found guilty by a jury, which sentenced him to fifty years in prison. However, the trial court changed this sentence to life in prison, stating that the fifty years exceeded the maximum allowed. This was incorrect, as the fifty-year sentence was valid. The court acknowledged that the jury did not exceed the legal limits, and that the trial court’s change to life imprisonment was a mistake. Therefore, the case was sent back for proper sentencing. Struble also claimed that the prosecutor’s questions aimed at making the victim seem more sympathetic affected his right to a fair trial. However, since there were no objections during the trial to these questions, the court only looked for plain error. They determined that no major error had occurred in this matter. In summary, the court upheld the jury's conviction but pointed out the wrongfulness of the life sentence imposed by the trial court, sending the case back for the jury's original sentence to take effect.

Continue ReadingF-2021-1220

RE-2020-452

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-452, Katlin Maye Ford appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Katlin pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and received a ten-year sentence that was suspended. This means she did not have to go to prison right away but had to follow certain rules. One rule was that she needed to pay restitution, which is money that goes to the victim to help with their losses. In October 2018, the State of Oklahoma asked the court to end her suspended sentence because she had not paid the restitution. In November 2018, Katlin decided to represent herself in court, meaning she did not want a lawyer. She admitted that she had not paid the restitution as ordered. The court then allowed more time for her to get back on track with her payments. However, in June 2020, the court decided to take away three years of her suspended sentence because she still had not paid the restitution. Katlin thought this was unfair and appealed the decision, making some important claims: 1. She said she was not given proper legal help when she needed it. 2. She believed the court should have helped her get a lawyer for her hearing. 3. She argued that any failure to pay the restitution was not intentional. In examining her first claim, the court noted that people have the right to have a lawyer when their suspended sentences are being revoked. For someone to give up that right, they must do it knowingly, which means they understand what they are doing. The court found that there was no clear record showing that Katlin had enough information about self-representation or that she made her decision with full understanding of the consequences. Since the court did not make sure she understood everything about waiving her right to a lawyer, the appeal was successful. The original decision to revoke her suspended sentence was reversed, meaning Katlin would get another chance to address her restitution payments and have proper legal representation. Therefore, the court instructed for the case to go back to the lower court for further actions that are consistent with its opinion. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2020-452

F-2018-36

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-36, Robert Eugene Brewer appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Brewer's conviction. One judge dissented. Brewer was tried in Tulsa County for sexually abusing a child under the age of 12. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was also ordered to serve three years of supervision after his prison term. Brewer appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court made a mistake by allowing evidence related to other crimes that he believed had not been proven. The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. The main issue was whether the trial court had the right to let in evidence that showed Brewer had a pattern of behavior related to sexual abuse. This type of evidence is sometimes called propensity evidence. Brewer argued that the trial court should have held a special hearing before allowing this evidence and should have required witnesses to testify in person. However, the court found that the trial judge had done a thorough job. The judge had held multiple hearings and considered the evidence carefully. The judge did not make a mistake by allowing the evidence because they had enough information to decide it was relevant and necessary for the case. Even though Brewer did not object to the evidence when it was presented during the trial, the court considered whether there was a serious mistake that affected the fairness of the trial. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that the trial judge acted correctly. In summary, the court believed that the evidence presented was acceptable and did not harm Brewer's case. Therefore, Brewer’s conviction was upheld, but the court also instructed the district court to make some corrections to its legal documents regarding the correct law that applied to Brewer's actions at the time of the crime. The decision was to keep Brewer's sentence in place while correcting the legal documentation properly.

Continue ReadingF-2018-36

F-2018-326

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-326, #1 appealed his conviction for #stalking. In a (published) decision, the court decided #the State proved that the protective order was valid during the time of the incidents. #2 dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2018-326

JS-2016-1062

  • Post author:
  • Post category:JS

In OCCA case No. JS-2016-1062, Z.N. appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted Z.N. certification as a juvenile. The State had claimed that the judge made a mistake in allowing Z.N. to be treated as a juvenile. However, the court found that the judge's decision was reasonable given the evidence and factors surrounding the case. The ruling included considerations of the nature of the crime, Z.N.'s background, and the potential for rehabilitation. No judge dissented.

Continue ReadingJS-2016-1062

RE-2016-401

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-401, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the person entered a guilty plea on November 3, 2014, and was sentenced to eight years in prison, with three years to be served and the rest suspended. This means he would not have to serve the full eight years right away. However, problems arose when the State of Oklahoma wanted to revoke his suspended sentence on January 13, 2016. During the revocation hearing held on April 26, 2016, it was found that he had violated the terms of his suspended sentences. The important issue in the appeal was whether the court had the right to hold the hearing after a certain time. According to the law, a revocation hearing should happen within twenty days unless both sides agree to wait longer. In this case, the person pleaded not guilty on February 1, 2016. The hearing was originally set for February 29, 2016, which was already too late according to the rules. It was then moved to April 26, 2016, making it even later and not meeting the legal deadline. Because the court did not have the right to hold the hearing after so much time had passed, the higher court decided to reverse the earlier decision and send the case back for further action that follows the law.

Continue ReadingRE-2016-401

F-2016-55

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-55, James Curtis Cox appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: Cox was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison: twenty-five years for the first count and life imprisonment for the second count, along with fines. He had to serve eighty-five percent of his sentences before he could be considered for parole. Cox appealed because he thought several things went wrong during his trial. First, he complained that his lawyer did not do a good job. He also said the trial court made mistakes by not instructing the jury properly about certain evidence and that they considered witness statements that shouldn’t have been allowed. The court reviewed everything his lawyer did and decided that Cox was not able to show that he had suffered because of his lawyer's performance. They ruled that even if his lawyer didn’t object to some evidence or didn’t ask for certain instructions, it did not ruin his chance for a fair trial. The judges also looked at whether the trial court made mistakes about some evidence being used during the trial. They found that while some evidence shouldn’t have been used, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. However, when it came to sentencing, the judges found a significant problem. The trial court should not have considered certain statements from victims who were not part of the case. They concluded that the judge was influenced by these statements, which were not allowed, while deciding how long Cox should stay in prison. In the end, the judges decided that Cox’s sentences should be changed to run concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time instead of one after the other. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences so Cox would have a slightly lighter sentence to serve compared to what they initially decided. The appeal allowed Cox to get a better outcome in terms of his sentences, even though he still faced serious charges.

Continue ReadingF-2016-55

C-2008-593

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-593, Alan Daniels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. On July 14, 2005, Daniels pled guilty to growing a small marijuana plant. The judge deferred sentencing for five years, making him serve ten days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. Later, the State found that he violated the terms of his plea deal, and on February 14, 2006, the judge sentenced him to life in prison. Over the next two years, Daniels tried to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal the decision. Daniels' plea was reviewed on June 12, 2008, but the district court upheld the plea and denied his request. Daniels then appealed to a higher court, asking to withdraw his plea and have a new trial, or to change his sentence. The issues raised included whether the evidence showed he violated probation, if his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was enough to prove that Daniels broke the rules set during his probation. The court also found that Daniels's guilty plea was made knowingly. However, the court believed that a life sentence for growing a small marijuana plant was too extreme. They decided to change his sentence to five years in prison instead.

Continue ReadingC-2008-593

F-2006-348

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-348, Charles Terrell appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to ten years. One judge dissented. Charles Terrell was found guilty by a jury for molesting a young girl. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison. During the trial, evidence about other crimes was brought up, which included testimony from Terrell's former step-daughter who said Terrell had abused her too. Terrell argued that this testimony was unfair and should not have been allowed, as it could make the jury think he was guilty of more than just the crime he was accused of in this case. The court agreed that mentioning the other crimes was not handled well, as it wasn't properly limited. However, they also believed the main evidence from the victim in this case was strong and enough to show he was guilty. They found that allowing the other testimony did not change the fact that Terrell was guilty, so his conviction stood. On the topic of his sentence, the court thought about how the other crimes evidence might have led the jury to give him a much longer sentence than they would have otherwise. Because of this, they decided to reduce his sentence to ten years instead of twenty. The court concluded that the main evidence was solid, but the details about his past accusations were overly prejudicial and affected the severity of his punishment. The judge also noted that a photograph of the victim was properly allowed into evidence and was not seen as too harmful. In the end, while the conviction remained, the court decided to lessen the time Terrell would spend in prison, trimming it down to ten years.

Continue ReadingF-2006-348

M-2004-66

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-66, Foy Anthony Boyd appealed his conviction for Driving While Impaired (DWI). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Boyd’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Boyd was convicted in the District Court of Coal County after a jury trial. He was sentenced to pay court costs and a fine because he was found guilty of DWI. Boyd argued that he should not have been convicted because he believed the results of his breath test should not have been used as evidence. He claimed that the rules about how the breath test should be given were not followed, so the results were not valid. The state, which was against Boyd in the case, argued that they did not make a mistake and that there was enough evidence to convict him without the breath test results. However, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the state to prove that all rules were followed when giving the breath test. The state did not show what the relevant rules were or that the officers followed them properly. Boyd presented evidence showing that the breath test was not conducted according to the rules that the Board had in place. The state just had officers say they believed the rules were followed without providing the actual rules or clearing up the concerns about them. The court decided that this was a significant error. Even though officers testified that Boyd showed signs of being impaired before the breath test was done, the court concluded that the use of the test in the trial was a violation of Boyd's rights. Since the state didn't prove that the breath test was done correctly, the court believed Boyd deserved a new trial. Boyd asked for his conviction to be completely dismissed. However, the court felt that it was fairer to allow the state to have another chance to present the case with proper evidence. If the state could show that the breath test was given correctly in the retrial, they could use those results against Boyd. The court ordered that Boyd's conviction be overturned and that the case be sent back for a new trial where the state could fix the issues with the evidence. In the dissenting opinion, the judge believed that the evidence supporting Boyd’s conviction was strong enough even without the breath test. This judge pointed out that the officers had seen signs of intoxication in Boyd, like the smell of alcohol, his bloodshot eyes, and his poor performance on sobriety tests. The judge argued that Boyd's guilty verdict should stand since traditional signs of impairment by officers could be enough for a conviction.

Continue ReadingM-2004-66

F-2003-719

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-719, Timothy Phipps appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Appellant's conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Phipps was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Muskogee County and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, with five of those years suspended. The court found that the jury had been mistakenly instructed about the minimum punishment. They believed they were allowed to sentence him to a minimum that was not accurate due to his past conviction from Arkansas. Because of this mistake, the court changed his sentence to ten years in prison with five years suspended. The court carefully reviewed everything in the case and determined that the mistake about the punishment made a difference in how the sentence was decided.

Continue ReadingF-2003-719

F-2001-122

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF-2001-122