In OCCA case No. F-2013-801, Dotson appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the term of post-imprisonment supervision to twelve months. One justice dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-790, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Fowler for Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the ruling of the trial court, which prohibited the testimony about another incident of domestic violence involving Fowler and his former girlfriend. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of the case. Fowler was charged with domestic violence against his wife, Andrea, in front of their young son. Before the trial, the State wanted to use evidence of past violent behavior by Fowler to strengthen their case. They aimed to show that Fowler had a pattern of violent actions, including a similar incident against a former girlfriend, Terri East, and another against Andrea in the past. However, the trial court allowed some evidence but ultimately decided that the specific incident involving Terri East could not be used in court. The court ruled this evidence was not relevant enough to help prove the current case against Fowler. The judge felt that bringing in this past incident would unfairly bias the jury against Fowler without directly connecting it to the charges at hand. The State argued that the evidence would show a pattern of behavior and that Fowler's actions were not accidental. However, the court found that the two incidents weren't closely related enough to justify including the evidence about Terri East. The court based its decision on legal standards that say other crimes cannot be used simply to paint a bad picture of a person's character. In the end, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, supporting the idea that each case should be proven based on the evidence directly related to the charges, rather than on past actions that might suggest a person is guilty. The case concluded with the court ruling in favor of Fowler, maintaining the exclusion of the evidence against him.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-409, Adkins appealed his conviction for probation violations. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of some of his suspended sentences but ruled that the judge could not deny him good time credits while serving his time. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green, Ronald Krushe, and Christopher Thornburg appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them. One judge dissented. The case began when the three men, who were bail bondsmen, went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, who were staying there. They knocked on the door, entered the home, and handcuffed the Joneses to take them into custody. The homeowner, Patrick Wills, and his wife were not happy about this and called the police. While Green and his employees thought they were legally allowed to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond, the State of Oklahoma disagreed and charged them with burglary and kidnapping. The trial court disagreed, stating that the bondsmen did have the right to make the arrests. The State argued that the men acted unlawfully because of certain statements made during the incident, but the court found that they were working within their rights as bail bondsmen. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to dismiss the charges, stating there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in concluding that the bondsmen were acting legally.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green appealed his conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against him and his co-defendants, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg. One judge dissented. The case began when Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were charged after they went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, for breaching their bail bond. They entered the home without permission and removed the Joneses, leading to their arrest. However, the court found that since Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were acting as bail bondsmen with the legal authority to arrest, they did not commit the crimes of burglary or kidnapping. The state argued that their actions were unlawful since they entered the home with the intent to kidnap. However, the court determined that the bondsmen acted within their rights, resulting in the dismissal of charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-305, Lonnie Waylon Craighead appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Craighead's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Craighead was found guilty in a jury trial and sentenced to thirty years in prison with a $50,000 fine. He raised several complaints about his trial, including that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof, his arrest was not lawful, and his rights were violated during questioning. He also claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough, and he was not given fair representation by his lawyer. After reviewing the case, the court wrote that they did not see a problem with how the prosecution handled the case. They felt there was enough evidence for the jury to find Craighead guilty. The court believed the police had valid reasons for stopping and questioning him. They stated that Craighead had been informed of his rights before being interviewed and that he agreed to talk. The court also noted that while the prosecutor made a few mistakes, they did not harm Craighead’s right to a fair trial. The details of his previous crimes were shared, but it did not seem to affect the outcome of the trial. The jury also had enough evidence to verify that Craighead had prior felony convictions. Regarding the claim of ineffective help from his lawyer, the court decided that Craighead was not denied a good defense. They found that the sentence he received was not excessive, given the nature of his actions and past crimes. However, the court did find an issue with the jail fees Craighead was assessed after sentencing. These fees were not discussed during the trial, and Craighead was not given a chance to contest them. Therefore, the court sent the case back to the district court to address the jail fee situation. In summary, the court upheld Craighead’s conviction but revised the part about the jail fees, ordering a hearing for that matter.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-250, Richard Shane Kuehn appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of seven years of Kuehn's twelve-year suspended sentence was reversed because the judge who decided his case had previously worked as a prosecutor on it. Kuehn claimed he did not get a fair hearing because of this, and the court agreed, stating that judges cannot preside over cases in which they have been involved as attorneys without consent from the parties. Kuehn's other claims were not reviewed since the court found for him on the first point.
In OCCA case No. J-2014-108, C.E.B. appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's sentencing order. A dissenting opinion was not noted. C.E.B. was charged as a youthful offender when he was only 15 years old for serious offenses involving a younger relative. He initially pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to a rehabilitation program rather than prison. His time in the program was monitored by the Office of Juvenile Affairs, which recommended that he could successfully complete his treatment. The court emphasized that upon successful completion, charges could be dismissed. Despite showing progress and completing his treatment program, the District Court later sentenced C.E.B. to prison as an adult, which contradicted the earlier agreements regarding his rehabilitation. The State had initially indicated that his completion of the program would lead to dismissal, yet pursued a harsher sentence instead. The Appeals Court found that the lower court abused its discretion. C.E.B. had completed his rehabilitation successfully, and there was no extensive evidence to suggest he posed a threat that would require adult sentencing. The State failed to follow the proper procedures for transferring him to adult custody and should not have ignored the earlier agreements about his rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court ordered that C.E.B.'s case be dismissed, his name removed from the sex offender registry, and that his record be expunged. He was to be released from custody right away, confirming the importance of fair legal processes, especially for youthful offenders.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-137, Antonio Catalino Myrie appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Myrie's conviction but vacated the $10,000 fine imposed. One judge dissented regarding aspects of the sentencing arguments presented at trial. Antonio Myrie was tried and found guilty by a jury. The jury decided that he would spend thirty-five years in prison and pay a fine for the crime. Myrie appealed this decision, claiming several errors during his trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes by not allowing him to suppress DNA evidence, not giving him more time to prepare his case, and other issues he thought affected his right to a fair trial. The judges reviewed the claims made by Myrie. They explained that the evidence used in his trial, including the DNA, was evaluated carefully. The judges believed that the trial court's decision to admit the DNA evidence was not a mistake. They also felt that Myrie did not show that he would have won his case even if the DNA had been tested differently. Myrie's other claims included that the court made mistakes in admitting hearsay evidence, which means statements made outside of court that shouldn't be used as evidence in court. The judges found that there was no strong reason to believe this would change the outcome of the trial, so they denied this claim as well. One important point was about how the jury was instructed on the consequences of a conviction. Myrie’s lawyers did not object to the jury instructions, and the judges concluded that one instruction wrongly made it sound like the fine was mandatory. They decided to remove the fine based on this mistake. Myrie also argued about misconduct during the trial, specifically that the prosecutor mentioned too many of his previous convictions, which he believed made the jury biased against him. However, the judges thought that while there were errors in how the prosecutor presented this information, it did not affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. In the end, the judges agreed that Myrie's punishment was justified given his past actions, and they decided to keep the thirty-five-year prison sentence while removing the fine due to a mistake about the jury instruction. One judge disagreed with parts of the decision, particularly about how the prosecutor argued about Myrie's past, stating it should have a different impact on the sentence. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and modified the fine.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-687, the appellant appealed his conviction for DUI manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, stating that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the appellant's actions were the direct cause of the victim's death. Two justices dissented from the decision. The case involved an incident that took place on October 11, 2012, when the appellee was charged with first-degree manslaughter. This charge stemmed from the accidental death of his wife, Linda Vaughan, while he was driving under the influence of alcohol. During the preliminary hearing, it was revealed that Vaughan was intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level of .14, and that his wife had exited the truck he was driving. She was killed when he accidentally ran over her. Vaughan argued that the state's evidence failed to show that his driving while intoxicated was the direct cause of Linda's death. Testimony from a highway patrolman indicated that while Vaughan may have been more aware of his surroundings if he were sober, Linda's death would have occurred regardless of his intoxication. The court examined whether the state had presented enough evidence to prove that the appellee's actions directly caused the victim's death. They found that the evidence showed Linda made the choice to leave the vehicle and that her death was caused by her own actions, not by the appellee's impaired driving. Because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of DUI manslaughter, the court upheld the decision of the lower court, which had granted Vaughan's demurrer, meaning they did not find probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. In the end, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the evidence was not strong enough to support the charge against Vaughan. The decision did not minimize the tragedy of the accident but emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in such cases.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1076, Stacy Gene Bellis appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Stacy Gene Bellis had originally pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and was sentenced to twelve years, with part of the sentence being suspended if he completed a drug treatment program. However, the State then accused Bellis of breaking the rules of his suspended sentence by committing new crimes. A hearing was held to decide the State's accusations. The judge reviewed evidence from a separate trial Bellis had regarding new charges against him. The judge used this evidence to justify revoking Bellis's suspended sentence. Bellis appealed this decision, arguing that it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from his other trial without his agreement. The court agreed with Bellis, stating that it was not proper to take evidence from one case and use it in another without the defendant's permission. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke Bellis's suspended sentence and instructed for a new hearing to take place, where proper evidence should be presented. No other actions were ordered, and the judges involved agreed to this outcome, except for one who had a different opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0523, Michelle Renea Runco appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her suspended sentence and send the case back for a new hearing with legal representation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-212, Alvin Lavan Johnson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's revocation order and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In 2003, Johnson was charged with the felony crime of domestic abuse. After pleading guilty in 2004, he received a suspended sentence of seven years. Years later, the State issued a warrant to revoke his suspension. Johnson was arrested and a revocation hearing took place with a judge and a prosecutor who had both been involved in the previous stages of his case. Johnson argued that this created an unfair situation. In his appeal, Johnson raised several points. He claimed that the delay in processing his case required dismissal. He also argued that it was unfair for the same attorney who had defended him to now be prosecuting him, and that the judge who revoked his sentence was involved in the original case. The State admitted errors but thought that a new hearing would be enough to fix the issues. The court agreed with Johnson on two of his claims, stating that the previous judge and prosecutor had conflicts of interest due to their past involvement in the case. Because of this, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further examination. Johnson will have a chance to present his arguments, including the claim about the delay, in front of a new and impartial judge. The court concluded that the other claims raised by Johnson didn’t need to be discussed at this time.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-732, Omar Sharrod Pollard appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (crack cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Pollard's conviction but modified his sentence. One Justice dissented. Here’s a breakdown of what happened in this case: 1. **Background**: Pollard was tried by a jury and found guilty of selling crack cocaine. He had prior felony convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence. The jury decided on a punishment of forty years in prison. 2. **Issues on Appeal**: Pollard raised several points in his appeal: - He claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to the admission of multiple felony convictions from the same event to enhance his sentence. - He alleged prosecutorial misconduct that he believed made his trial unfair. - He argued that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer during the sentencing phase. - He said that information about his previous suspended sentences should not have been shared with the jury during the trial. - He questioned whether there was enough evidence for his conviction. - He thought his sentence was too long. - He claimed the accumulation of errors in his trial prevented a fair process. 3. **Court's Findings**: The court reviewed Pollard's claims. They concluded that while he did not need to reverse the conviction, his sentence needed to be adjusted. The court acknowledged two specific errors concerning how the State presented Pollard's prior convictions and the details of his past sentences to the jury. 4. **Errors Identified**: - It was wrong for the jury to hear about Pollard’s multiple felony convictions from the same incident. The law states that for estimating punishment, the jury should only be aware of one conviction from a single event. - Additionally, disclosing that some of his previous sentences were suspended was inappropriate. This information could have biased the jury against him and influenced their decision on sentencing. 5. **Conclusion**: The court felt that these mistakes likely swayed the jury's decision on Pollard's punishment. Therefore, they decided to reduce Pollard's prison sentence from forty years to twenty-five years. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, but Pollard's sentence was modified to a lesser term of 25 years in prison.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1032, Jacob Keith Meyer appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and grand larceny. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for some charges but remanded for a lawful sentence on one count. One judge dissented. Jacob Keith Meyer had pleaded guilty to four different charges, including possession of methamphetamine and grand larceny, and was given a sentence of eight years in prison, with five years suspended. This meant he would only have to serve the first five years right away, while the rest would be postponed under probation rules. However, in 2012, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes, which led to a hearing to determine whether he truly violated the terms of his probation. During the hearing, it was shown that contraband, including marijuana, was found in a mattress from the jail cell where Meyer had been sleeping. The evidence suggested that Meyer was aware of the contraband since it was hidden inside the mattress he was lying on. Although Meyer challenged the evidence, stating that it wasn't sufficient to prove he violated probation, the court believed there was enough proof to support the revocation of his suspended sentences for three of the four charges. However, Meyer’s sentence for the first count in one of the cases was too long according to the law, so the court decided to send that particular charge back to the lower court to set a proper sentence. This decision meant that while Meyer would still have his other sentences revoked, the court would not enforce the invalid sentence associated with the larceny charge for the amount it exceeded legal limits. The court ultimately ruled that it had the authority to affirm some parts of Meyer’s case while needing to correct others where the law had been misapplied.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-315, David Johns appealed his conviction for larceny. In a published decision, the court decided that a trial court cannot modify the terms and conditions of a negotiated deferred judgment without the consent of the State. The case involved Johns, who had entered a guilty plea and was placed on deferred judgment for five years. He filed a motion to change the terms of his deferred judgment, and the trial court agreed to shorten it and dismiss the case, which the State appealed. The court explained that under current laws, the trial court does not have the authority to shorten the deferment period once a plea agreement is in place. This ruling was made to prevent issues that could discourage prosecutors from agreeing to deferred judgments in the future. The court emphasized that any changes to the terms of a deferred judgment must follow statutory guidelines, and the trial court may only act when the conditions are met at the end of the deferment period. It upheld the idea that modifying an agreement without proper authority is not allowed. Therefore, the original decision to cut Johns' probation short was not supported by the law. The court's answer to the reserved question of law confirmed that the trial court was not authorized to cut short the period of deferment after the terms of the plea agreement had been established. #n dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-279, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and transporting an open container of liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences, stating that the trial court lost jurisdiction because it did not hold the revocation hearing within the required twenty days after the appellant entered his plea. The decision was made without needing to address the other arguments raised by the appellant. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-150, a person appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance in the presence of a child and child neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to deny some requests but modified the sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Jennifer Michelle Stumpe, who pled guilty to two crimes. The first was possessing marijuana in front of a child, and the second was child neglect. She entered a program to help people with drug problems. Unfortunately, her participation in the program did not go well, leading the state to seek to terminate her involvement in the program. After agreeing to terminate her program participation, Stumpe was sentenced to five years in prison for each crime, but the sentences would run together. She later asked the court to let her take back her guilty plea, claiming she did not get a fair chance because of her lawyer and that she didn't understand the consequences of her plea. The court looked closely at her claims. Stumpe argued she did not get good help from her lawyer and that she was confused about the law and the possible punishments. However, the court found that these claims should not change the outcome of her case and that there was no big mistake made that would affect her rights significantly. Stumpe specifically challenged the length of her sentence for the first crime. The law said she could only get a maximum of two years in prison for that charge, but the court had given her five years. The court agreed that this was a mistake and decided to change her five-year sentence for that crime down to two years while keeping the other parts of her punishment the same. In summary, while Stumpe's requests to withdraw her pleas based on poor advice were denied, the court granted her request to reduce her sentence for the first crime to match the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-545, Jimmy Dale Stone appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand his convictions for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy was found guilty by a jury on several counts of lewd molestation involving children. He was sentenced to a total of eight years in prison, with some of the sentences running one after the other and one running at the same time as another. He had to serve a majority of his sentence before he could be considered for parole. On appeal, Jimmy raised several important points. He argued that the judge didn’t explain all the important parts of the law about lewd molestation to the jury. He believed the evidence used against him wasn’t enough to prove he had done anything wrong. He claimed that the jury was influenced by people who talked about the case before it started. He felt he was not given a fair chance at trial because of things the prosecutor said about the victims. Also, he said he should have had money for an expert witness to help prove his side. He believed that presenting other crimes as evidence was unfair. Finally, he argued that all these mistakes together affected the fairness of his trial. The main issue that the court found was a big mistake in how the jury was instructed about the law. There are specific things that must be proven to convict someone of lewd molestation. To be found guilty, it must be shown that the defendant knowingly did something wrong and that they intended to do it. This was not explained correctly to the jury during the trial. The court found that some parts of the legal instructions given did not include important elements needed to prove the case. Although there was an argument about whether this error was harmful, the court decided it was serious enough to affect the outcome of the trial. They concluded that omitting the requirement that the defendant acted knowingly and intentionally could have changed how the jury viewed the evidence and questions raised during the trial. Since the evidence against him was not overwhelming enough to guarantee he was guilty regardless of these instructions, the decision was made to reverse the conviction. Because of this significant error, the court said that Jimmy should get a new trial where the jury would be properly instructed on the law. The other issues he raised in his appeal were not discussed because the main error already warranted a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-478, Michael Ray Baack appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Public Intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court while remanding the case to correct the judgment regarding the fine on Count 1. One member of the court dissented. Michael Ray Baack was found guilty by a jury in Canadian County for having controlled substances and for being publicly intoxicated. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison and pay a $2,000 fine for the drug charge, along with thirty days in jail for public intoxication. The judge ordered both sentences to be served one after the other but waived the fine on the drug charge. Baack raised several questions on appeal. He argued about the evidence being enough to convict him of the drug charge, how other crimes were presented during the trial, the lack of instructions on a lesser drug offense, the fine, and whether his sentence was too harsh. 1. The court found that the evidence showed Baack had knowingly possessed drugs. The jury had enough proof to make a logical decision based on the facts presented. 2. About the other crimes evidence, the court mentioned that Baack had introduced his prior record himself, so he could not complain about that during the appeal since it was his choice to bring it up. 3. Baack's request for a lower charge on drug paraphernalia was not granted because he claimed he was innocent. The court said that when someone claims they did not do something, they cannot ask for lesser charges. 4. The fine for the drug charge was waived, and both Baack and the state agreed that the case should go back to the lower court to correct the documents to show there was no fine. 5. The claim that Baack was hurt by showing his previous felony conviction was denied because it did not affect the outcome of the case. The court stated that the sentences were appropriate and followed the law. In conclusion, the court upheld the findings of the lower court and noted there was no need for a new trial or changes to the verdicts, except for correcting the issue with the fine.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-413 & 415, Mark Anthony Herfurth appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Sex Offender Living within 2000 feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Herfurth was taken to court because he was accused of not registering as a sex offender and for living too close to a school after he had been convicted of a crime related to indecent exposure. In his earlier conviction, he had agreed to register as a sex offender for a certain number of years. However, when laws changed in 2007, it meant that people in his situation could be assigned a risk level and have to register for longer. Herfurth argued that he shouldn't be held to the new law because he had already completed his requirements from his original plea. The judge agreed with him and dismissed the charges, saying that the laws could not be applied to him retroactively. The State of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision. They believed that the new law should apply to Herfurth since he was still required to register as a sex offender. They argued that laws are meant to protect the public, and because he was registering at the time of the new law's change, he should follow the new rules. However, upon review, the court decided that the lower court did not make a mistake. They concluded that the 2007 law was a significant change and should only apply going forward, not backward. The court also stated that applying the 2007 law to Herfurth after his original plea would have changed his obligations unfairly. Therefore, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges against Herfurth, stating that they have a duty to interpret laws as they were intended at the time of the original guilty plea. The dissenting judge felt differently, believing that the law should have applied to Herfurth based on the new requirements.
In OCCA case No. F 2012-639, Marty Lee Langley appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Langley was found guilty of lewd molestation after a jury trial in Marshall County. The incident involved two separate and unrelated claims of molestation, but the jury was instructed that they could convict Langley based on either act. Langley argued that this was unfair because the jury should have agreed on one specific act. The court agreed that this was a significant error, stating that all jurors must be on the same page about which act they are considering when deciding a case. Additionally, the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that suggested the jury should convict Langley to prevent him from harming other children in the future. The court found this to be improper as it is not right to convict someone based on the idea that they might commit future crimes. While Langley had other claims about the fairness of his trial and the effectiveness of his legal counsel, the court determined that the main issue had to do with the way the jury was instructed and the prosecutor's comments. Because of these errors, Langley's original trial was deemed unfair, leading to the decision for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-322, Ridge appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order that suppressed evidence obtained during the investigative detention. One judge dissented. The case began when a police detective observed what he thought was a drug deal involving Ridge. He saw Ridge in his car and another vehicle pull up next to him. Ridge got into the other car briefly, then returned to his own. Suspecting a drug transaction, the detective blocked Ridge's car and approached it. When he smelled marijuana, he questioned Ridge, who initially claimed the other person was just delivering puppy papers. Eventually, Ridge admitted there was marijuana under his seat. Ridge filed a motion to suppress the evidence from this encounter because he argued that the police did not have a good enough reason to stop him. Initially, a different judge denied Ridge's motion. However, after Ridge requested a reconsideration, the case was transferred to another judge, who granted the motion to suppress. The main issues on appeal were whether the new judge should have been able to review the case and whether the detective had enough reason to stop Ridge. The court ruled that the new judge was allowed to reconsider the motion. They stated that earlier rulings on suppression motions were not final and could be evaluated again. Regarding the stop, the court found that the detective did not have sufficient reason to detain Ridge. They stated that just observing Ridge getting in and out of a car was not enough to suspect him of criminal activity. Overall, the court agreed with the district court’s decision to suppress the evidence, meaning it could not be used in court against Ridge.