State of Oklahoma

F-2004-935

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-935, Alfred Junior Mills appealed his conviction for burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The case involved Alfred Junior Mills, who had been convicted of burglary and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. After his appeal, the court looked at some important issues. One issue was about how much time he would actually have to serve. The appellant's team argued that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, which means that a person must serve at least 85% of their sentence. This rule was important because it may have changed how the jury decided to sentence him. The court agreed that they should apply this rule to his case because it was decided while his appeal was still going on. They found that the jury might not have given him a thirty-year sentence if they had known he would have to serve at least 85% of that time. So, they reduced his sentence to twenty years instead of thirty. Another part of the appeal was about whether the jury should have considered a lesser crime instead of burglary. The defense had a theory that they believed should have led to a different verdict, but the jury didn't buy it. They thought Mills' story was not believable and gave him a sentence that was much higher than the minimum. The court decided that there was no reason to think the jury would have chosen to give him a lesser charge after they rejected his story so strongly. In conclusion, the court made a significant change to Mills' sentence due to the 85% rule but upheld the conviction for burglary. One judge disagreed with the decision to modify the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2004-935

F-2005-963

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.

Continue ReadingF-2005-963

F-2005-718

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-718, Sylvia Coronado Frias appealed her conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine and Maintaining a Vehicle Used for a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction on both counts but instructed the district court to correct her sentence to match the jury's recommendation. One judge dissented. Frias was found guilty by a jury and received a 20-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine for Trafficking Methamphetamine, along with a five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine for the other charge. However, the judge sentenced her to 25 years without fully explaining why he deviated from the jury's recommendation. The court examined several issues from Frias's appeal, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence, if juror misconduct occurred, whether Frias had effective legal help, and if the jury was properly instructed regarding her sentence. 1. The court found that admitting the videotape of Frias and another person was done correctly since it was relevant evidence and didn't unfairly hurt her case. 2. The court could not consider claims related to juror misconduct because Frias didn't properly submit evidence to support her statements about it. 3. Frias's claim that her counsel was ineffective also failed because she didn't follow the rules to request further hearings to develop evidence for that claim. 4. The court stated that the trial court was not required to tell the jury about specific sentence limitations concerning trafficking cases. Finally, the court decided that while they agreed with much of the trial court’s findings, the sentence for trafficking had to be corrected to align with the jury's earlier decision of 20 years. The fine would also need to be reviewed.

Continue ReadingF-2005-718

F-2006-780

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-780, Roy Carl Bales, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bales's conviction for robbery but modified his sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle to three years in prison. One judge dissented. Bales was found guilty by a jury of committing robbery with a firearm and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The jury decided that he should serve twenty years for robbery and six years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running one after the other. Bales raised two main points in his appeal. The first point was about how the trial court instructed the jury on the minimum sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Bales argued that the court made a mistake by not giving the jury the correct information on the punishment range. The second point was that the trial court should have made Bales's sentences run at the same time instead of back-to-back, which he thought was too harsh. After looking carefully at the details of the case, the court found a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the sentence. They decided that the minimum sentence for unauthorized use should be three years instead of six years. However, the court thought that the long sentence for robbery was appropriate given Bales's past criminal record, so they kept that sentence as it was. Ultimately, the court affirmed the robbery conviction and changed the unauthorized vehicle use sentence to three years in prison, making one judge disagree with the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2006-780

F-2005-110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-110, Marvin Royston White appealed his conviction for three counts of first degree manslaughter due to driving under the influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Marvin Royston White was found guilty by a jury for causing the deaths of three people while driving after consuming alcohol. The jury set him to serve twenty years for each count, making a total of sixty years in prison. White argued that he did not intentionally drink alcohol that day because he took cold medicine which he didn't know contained alcohol. White claimed that his attorney did not help him properly at trial by not asserting certain defenses, including involuntary intoxication. He mentioned that his attorney didn’t ask for a jury instruction on this defense, simply arguing that he was not guilty due to sleep apnea causing him to fall asleep while driving. The court considered whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on involuntary intoxication since White's defense was that he unknowingly consumed alcohol. The court felt this was important as it could have changed the jury's decision if they understood that his intoxication was not voluntary. Since the lower court did not give that instruction, the OCCA found it to be a major mistake that could have impacted the verdict significantly. Therefore, they decided to reverse White's conviction and ordered a new trial to give him a fair chance to present his defense properly. The dissenting judge believed that the evidence did not support the need for that jury instruction on involuntary intoxication, arguing that White was responsible for his actions and knowingly drove under the influence. Ultimately, White’s appeal was granted, allowing him a chance for a new trial to properly address his defense.

Continue ReadingF-2005-110

C-2006-1192

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1192, Chad Fourkiller appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and feloniously possessing a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on the application to withdraw his guilty plea. One member of the court dissented. Fourkiller had pleaded guilty to three charges, which included trying to escape from a police officer and having illegal weapons. He was sentenced to a total of time in prison, depending on whether he completed a program called Drug Court. After his participation in Drug Court ended, he was formally sentenced. Later, Fourkiller wanted to change his guilty plea and claimed his lawyer did not explain things properly to him. The court did not allow him to withdraw his plea at first. However, during a follow-up hearing, Fourkiller’s lawyer ended up testifying against him. This created a problem since a lawyer should not represent a client and then testify against them in the same case. The court found that Fourkiller did not receive proper legal help, and because of this, they agreed to his request for a new hearing to discuss his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The other arguments Fourkiller made in his appeal about double jeopardy and errors in his sentencing were found to not need a decision since the first issue was enough to allow for a new hearing.

Continue ReadingC-2006-1192

RE-2006-180

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-180, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided in part to grant the appeal, allowing credit for thirty days previously served, but denied the rest of the appeal concerning time served in county jail during the revocation proceedings. One judge dissented. The case involved Raynard Emory Dinkins, who had received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. Over time, Dinkins faced various legal issues, including an application to revoke his suspended sentence due to numerous probation violations. A judge found that he had violated several rules during his probation, leading to a revocation of his suspended sentence. The court noted that Dinkins had been in jail before his revocation hearing but did not grant him credit for that time, arguing that it was because he had trouble working with his attorneys. Dinkins contested this, claiming he should receive credit for the time he served while awaiting the hearing. The court agreed that he should receive credit for an earlier thirty-day jail term related to his probation. In the end, the court found that while Dinkins was entitled to some credit for time served, it was within the judge's discretion not to grant him credit for the later time spent in jail. Therefore, the appeal was partially granted to correct the credit issue, while other claims were denied.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-180

F-2006-598

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-598, Timmy Eugene Owen appealed his conviction for escaping from Grady County Jail and assaulting a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Owen's convictions but reverse his sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented from the opinion. Timmy Eugene Owen was convicted for two crimes: escaping from jail and assaulting a police officer. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison for the escape and ten years for the assault. Owen appealed this decision, claiming that he did not get a fair trial because of several reasons. First, he argued that the trial judge should have given him a mistrial due to improper questions from the prosecutor during the trial. However, the court said the judge did not make a mistake because the questions asked did not unfairly influence the jury's decision. Owen also claimed that the prosecutor acted unethically during the trial, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. The court agreed that some of the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate but believed they did not change the outcome of the trial. They said that despite these comments, the evidence against Owen was very strong. Additionally, Owen believed that his sentences were too harsh. He felt it was unfair to receive a life sentence for escaping from jail and ten years for the assault. The court did not change the life sentence for the escape but suggested that all sentences might need reconsideration because they found that the prosecutor's words affected the sentencing. Owen also raised an issue about being punished twice for the two different crimes. However, the court stated that the two crimes were separate and required different evidence, so they did not violate any laws about double punishment. In the end, while the court affirmed Owen's guilty verdicts, saying he was rightly found guilty for both charges, they reversed the sentences and sent the case back to lower court for a new sentencing. A judge disagreed, believing the trial was fair despite the errors.

Continue ReadingF-2006-598

F-2006-113

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-06-113, Brown appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and other charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions related to drug trafficking and possession with intent to distribute but reversed the conviction for possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, ordering it dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of the MDMA possession charge. Brown was on trial for three main charges: trafficking in illegal drugs (crack cocaine), possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, and eluding a police officer. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for trafficking, along with fines for the other charges. The case started when Brown led police on a car chase. During the chase, he threw out a bag that was later found to contain crack cocaine and MDMA pills. Brown argued that the trial court made mistakes, including not allowing him a continuance to prepare for trial after he decided to represent himself. The court noted that Brown had a long time to prepare since the case had been ongoing for two years and had already received several continuances. When he asked for a delay on the morning of the trial, it was denied since Brown had indicated he wanted to proceed. He also argued that he should have been given a lesser charge of possession with intent to distribute instead of trafficking. However, since he had over 16 grams of crack cocaine, which met the requirements for trafficking, the court did not agree with this. In another point, Brown claimed that having charges related to two different drugs was unfair and violated laws against double punishment for the same act. The court agreed that both drugs were in one bag and thus counted as a single act, leading them to reverse the MDMA conviction. Brown complained about the removal of a juror who was an intern for the public defender's office, claiming it was unjust. The court found that the trial judge acted properly to ensure an unbiased jury since the intern had worked with Brown's attorney. Lastly, Brown argued that his life sentence was harsh and that he was not allowed to present evidence in his favor during sentencing. However, the court pointed out that presenting such evidence is not a right in non-capital cases. Overall, the court upheld most of the trial's decisions while acknowledging a legal distinction that warranted the dismissal of the MDMA charge. One judge disagreed, feeling the convictions were justified and should stand.

Continue ReadingF-2006-113

F-2005-911

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-911, Timothy Griffith appealed his conviction for two counts of Attempted First Degree Rape and eight counts of sexual abuse of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences except for one count of attempted first degree rape, which was reversed and dismissed. One judge dissented. Griffith was found guilty of two attempted rapes and eight counts of sexually abusing a child, and he was given a total of 61 years in prison. He argued that both his rights against double jeopardy and his right to a fair trial had been violated, among other claims. The court reviewed each of Griffith's arguments. For the first point, the court found there was enough evidence to support the charges and no violation of double jeopardy. For the second and third points, the court ruled that the prosecutor had the discretion to charge Griffith with attempted rape instead of just intent to commit rape, so the trial was fair. Regarding the case's fourth and fifth points, the court decided that the additional testimonies from adult witnesses and the child's prior statements were allowable and did not greatly harm Griffith's case. The sixth allegation about a medical opinion from a physician assistant was also found not to be a problem since it did not influence the jury's decision directly. On point seven, the court agreed that the judge made a mistake by not letting Griffith fully present his defense. This part was significant because it led to the reversal of one of the counts against him. Finally, the court found that the sentences imposed were not excessive despite the overall situation, and there were no errors that would justify further action. In summary, most of Griffith's arguments were not persuasive to the court, and while some parts of the conviction remained, one count was removed due to the identified error.

Continue ReadingF-2005-911

F-2005-1161

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1161, Isaac Gardner appealed his conviction for Forcible Oral Sodomy and Attempted Sexual Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gardner's conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to fifteen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gardner was found guilty of Forcible Oral Sodomy and the jury recommended a lengthy prison sentence based on evidence presented, including Gardner's past admissions about similar actions. Although the judge allowed some evidence regarding Gardner's past, they did not believe it overly impacted the trial since the jury ultimately acquitted him of the Attempted Sexual Battery charge. Gardner argued that he did not receive a fair trial due to this evidence, but the court disagreed, noting that he had been warned about what evidence would be used against him. They also highlighted that his conviction was upheld because the jury was able to examine the evidence properly. Additionally, Gardner claimed that he should have been informed about parole eligibility under the 85% Rule, which says he would need to serve most of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged this misstep and reduced his sentence accordingly. In summary, the court confirmed that while Gardner’s initial trial and conviction stood, his sentence was adjusted to reflect what he had rightfully requested before the trial began.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1161

C-2006-571

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-571, Robert Carl Sharp appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant certiorari and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Robert Carl Sharp was convicted on January 5, 2006, after he entered guilty pleas to three counts of First Degree Manslaughter in the Pottawatomie County District Court. His sentencing was postponed until a Presentence Report could be made. When he was finally sentenced on February 15, 2006, he received ten years in prison for each count, with the sentences to be served one after the other. After the sentencing, Sharp wanted to withdraw his guilty pleas. He filed an application to do this on February 23, 2006, but during the hearing for this application on March 15, 2006, he was not present. The court denied his application to withdraw his pleas. This led Sharp to appeal the decision, raising several points he believed were errors in the process. Sharp argued that: 1. He was denied his right to be present at the hearing about withdrawing his pleas. 2. His sentences were too harsh and should be changed. 3. He did not get enough time to present evidence that could have helped lessen his sentence. The court looked carefully at Sharp's claims. They found that he did not get to be present at the hearing about his application to withdraw his guilty pleas, and there was no record showing he agreed to not be there. The court stated that a person has the right to be present in any situation that could affect the fairness of the process. Because the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea was an important part of the legal process, Sharp's absence was considered a violation of his rights. Thus, the court decided to send the case back to the district court so that Sharp could have a new hearing. This new hearing would allow him to be present and give his side of the story regarding his application to withdraw his guilty pleas. Since they granted his appeal on this matter, the other arguments he made were no longer needed to be considered. In conclusion, the court granted Sharp's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that even though he was absent from the hearing, it did not change the fact that his original guilty plea was valid and made willingly.

Continue ReadingC-2006-571

F-2004-1279

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1279, Daniel Hawkes Fears appealed his conviction for multiple counts including Murder in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence of sanity at the time of the crimes, ordering a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. One judge dissented, arguing that the jury should have had the proper instructions for a retrial instead of this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1279

F-2005-58

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-58, Alishia Faith Mackey appealed her conviction for permitting child abuse and failure to report child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction for permitting child abuse but vacated her conviction for failure to report child abuse. One judge dissented regarding the double punishment issue. Mackey was found guilty by a jury of allowing child abuse to happen and not reporting it. The jury said she should go to prison for twenty years for permitting the abuse and fined her $500 for failing to report it. Mackey argued that the trial had many mistakes, including that a child testified behind a screen without enough evidence to justify it, the jury wasn't properly instructed on possible defenses, and her lawyer didn't do a good job. She believed the sentences were too harsh and that all the errors added up to make her trial unfair. The court looked at each claim. It found that not allowing the child to confront Mackey face-to-face was a mistake, but it was not serious enough to change the outcome since there was a lot of other evidence against her. The court also said that there was no need to instruct the jury on a defense of duress because there was no proof that she was forced to allow the abuse. Additionally, they decided that while the jury didn't get instructions on another defense, it didn't matter because Mackey wasn't charged under that law. For the claims about not being allowed to cross-examine certain witnesses, the court said those decisions were fair and didn't break any rules. They determined that having both convictions didn’t go against laws against double punishment; however, since the two charges came from the same event, she should only receive one punishment. Overall, the court found that while some things in the trial were wrong, they did not change the fact that Mackey was guilty of permitting child abuse. They decided that the punishment for failing to report the abuse should be taken away since it was unfair to punish her twice for the same act. The final decision left her conviction for permitting child abuse in place but removed her conviction for failure to report. The judges had differing opinions on some points, particularly on whether both charges should stand, but the main ruling agreed that her punishment for the failure to report should not continue.

Continue ReadingF-2005-58

C-2006-693

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-693, Willeford appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Willeford's sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Willeford had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced to twenty years for each count, served one after the other, meaning he would spend a total of forty years in prison. He later wanted to take back his guilty plea and argued that he had not been properly informed about the 85% Rule. This rule states that a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court examined the record and found that Willeford was indeed not advised about this rule. This was a key issue because, based on a previous case, if a defendant isn’t informed about important rules affecting their freedom, it can make their plea involuntary and unfair. Instead of completely overturning Willeford's guilty plea and sending the case back for trial, the court decided to change the sentences so they would be served at the same time, reducing the total prison time he would face. In the dissent, one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the plea should be overturned altogether if it was found to be involuntary. This judge believed that just changing the sentences wasn’t enough and that the entire process needed to be reviewed, suggesting that the original ruling should simply be kept as it was.

Continue ReadingC-2006-693

F-2005-527

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-527, Thomas Terrill appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Thomas Terrill was originally charged with First Degree Murder in a case related to a death. During the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of First Degree Manslaughter and suggested a sentence of life in prison. The judge agreed with the jury's recommendation and sentenced Terrell accordingly. Terrill appealed this decision, claiming there were problems with his trial. He argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove he committed manslaughter. He also contended that the prosecutor made unfair comments that likely influenced the jury, and he believed that the sentence given was too harsh. After reviewing all the arguments and the case details, the court found that, despite Terrill's claims of self-defense, there was enough evidence for a reasonable person to decide that he acted in a heat of passion when he caused the victim's death. Therefore, the court did not agree with the claim that the evidence was insufficient for manslaughter. However, the court agreed with Terrill on the other two issues. It found that the prosecutor's comments, which urged the jury to think about the victim's family, were inappropriate, as these feelings should not influence the jurors' decision about the sentence. The court also mentioned that the jury had asked about the parole eligibility during their discussions, but the judge had not given them any additional instructions about this matter. The court pointed out that, based on a previous case, juries need to know relevant information about parole possibilities when deciding on a sentence. Because of these reasons, the decision was made to send the case back for a new sentencing hearing. Although Terrill's conviction for manslaughter was upheld, the previous sentence was set aside to ensure that he is given a fair opportunity during resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2005-527

F-2005-1031

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1031, Edgar Allen Moore appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Concealing Stolen Property and affirmed the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, but ordered a remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Moore was found guilty by a jury of two charges. The first was that he shot someone, and the second was for hiding a stolen gun. The jury said Moore should spend fifty years in prison for the shooting and five years for concealing the gun. Moore believed he shouldn’t be punished for Concealing Stolen Property because the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he knew the gun was stolen. When the police arrived, Moore acted nervous. He removed the ammunition from the gun and claimed he did it, but he didn’t say anything to show he knew the gun was stolen. The prosecution had to show that he knew the gun was stolen for him to be guilty of concealing it, but the court found that they didn’t have enough proof. Another issue was that the prosecutor talked about Moore’s right to stay silent in front of the jury. The comments made by the prosecutor were not allowed. The court decided that the prosecutor made a mistake by suggesting that Moore was acting suspiciously because he didn’t say anything about the gun being stolen. This made it hard for the jury to decide fairly. For the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, there was enough evidence presented, as many people saw Moore shoot the gun at the victim. The jury deliberated and sent a note asking questions about the potential length of the sentence and whether Moore could get parole. Moore’s attorney asked the court to tell the jury about the law that states he must serve 85% of his sentence for this type of crime, but the court refused to provide this information. Ultimately, the court decided that Moore's first conviction was valid, but he deserved a new sentencing hearing so he could have proper instructions given to the jury regarding his sentence. The bad ruling about the Concealing Stolen Property charge meant that this conviction was completely reversed. The court confirmed that the results were correct but expressed that reminders about procedures regarding juries should have been followed properly. The final ruling led to Moore's sentence for the serious crime being upheld, but he will have another chance with a new hearing about how much time he must actually serve.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1031

S-2006-117

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2006-117, the husband and wife, Larrie and Theresa Moyers, appealed their case concerning charges related to a scheme to defraud the State. They were originally indicted for multiple counts including conspiracy, bribery, and tax violations. Larrie had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence. Later, he sought to modify this sentence, which the court granted by reducing his time in prison and adding conditions like probation and treatment. After this modification, the State brought new charges against both Larrie and Theresa. They argued that these charges were unfair and retaliatory, claiming it was revenge for the sentence modification. The trial court agreed, finding that the new charges were indeed retaliatory and dismissed them, stating that this was against due process rights. The State then appealed this dismissal. The court reviewed whether it could hear the appeal and decided it could, as the dismissal was tied to constitutional issues. Ultimately, they affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the State's action against the Moyers was inappropriate. The decision was published and affirmed the dismissal of all charges against them, maintaining the previous ruling of retaliation based on the lawful actions taken by Larrie Moyers to modify his sentence.

Continue ReadingS-2006-117

S 2005-702

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2005-702, Roley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse/Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling. One judge dissented. Michael Ray Roley was charged with child abuse/neglect. This case started in Creek County District Court on November 9, 2004. After some hearings, the judge let Roley go free by granting a motion to quash, which means the charges against him were dismissed before a trial could happen. The State of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting Roley, didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal it. They brought up three main points they believed were wrong with the judge's ruling. First, they argued that a previous case about a person’s right to confront witnesses didn’t apply to preliminary hearings. They said Roley was claiming a right to confront witnesses too early. Second, the State believed that Roley should not have been allowed to extend this right to preliminary hearings in such a broad way. Finally, they suggested that the court should consider the need to protect the child who was the victim in this case. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the trial judge’s decision. They highlighted that Oklahoma’s Constitution and laws give a person a right to confront witnesses during preliminary hearings, just like in a full trial. The court also noted that hearsay evidence, or what someone said out of court, could not be used unless the person who made the statement was unavailable. In this case, the children who were supposed to testify did not do so, making what the State presented unacceptable to prove that a crime had happened. The judges deliberated and concluded that the trial judge acted correctly when deciding not to allow the case to proceed based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the court supported the decision of the trial court to grant the motion to quash the charges against Roley, keeping him from being tried. In the end, the court affirmed the lower decision and stated that they would issue a mandate to finalize the ruling. One judge had a different opinion and disagreed, but the majority agreed that the earlier ruling should stand.

Continue ReadingS 2005-702

S-2005-1067

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2005-1067

C-2005-1198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1198, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal. One member dissented. The case involved a man named Brad Daniel Richards who pleaded guilty to two charges: burglary and concealing stolen property. He received a sentence of seven years in prison for the burglary and a five-year suspended sentence for the other charge. After his conviction, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas because he felt that his lawyer did not represent him well during the hearing where he tried to withdraw his plea. Richards argued that his attorney had a conflict of interest. During the hearing to withdraw his plea, the attorney mentioned that there could be an issue with his previous representation but did not argue on Richards' behalf. The court noted that a lawyer should provide good help to their client, especially at this critical stage of the process. The court looked closely at whether Richards' lawyer's conflict of interest affected his case. They pointed out that Richards had not testified, and his lawyer did not really support his claims. Because of this, the court could not make a clear decision about whether Richards should be allowed to withdraw his plea. In the end, the court granted Richards' request to review the original decision and said he deserves a new hearing with a different lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest. Therefore, the lower court's judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new hearing.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1198

F-2003-1421

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1421, Kenneth Ray James appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case began when James was found guilty by a jury for assaulting a police officer. The jury decided that James should go to prison for ten years and pay a fine of $5,000. James then appealed this decision, questioning the evidence against him and whether the trial was fair. The court looked at how strong the evidence was, considering if it was good enough for a jury to decide guilt. They concluded that the evidence was strong enough for the jury to find James guilty. James argued that he did not have a fair trial because the jury was not given instructions on how to consider self-defense or lesser offenses. The court decided that the instructions were not needed because the evidence didn't support them, meaning the trial judge did not make a mistake in leaving them out. In the trial, the prosecutor made a statement during closing arguments that suggested jurors should find James guilty to serve and protect the officer involved. The court found this statement to be improper because it pressured jurors to believe they had a civic duty to side with the State. Although this was not objected to during the trial, the court recognized it as a serious mistake but didn’t think it affected the decision to find James guilty. However, the court felt the inappropriate comment might have influenced the jury's decision about the sentence. Therefore, they decided to change the punishment from ten years in prison and a fine to five years in prison without a fine. Overall, even though James's conviction was upheld, the court found a need to adjust the length of his sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision to reduce the sentence, believing there was no significant error in the original trial or sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1421

F-2005-700

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-700, Harry Oliver West appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While License is Canceled/Suspended/Revoked. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. West was found guilty by a jury, which decided that he should serve a total of 45 years in prison for the first offense and 1 year for the second offense, with some fines included as well. However, during the trial, the jury was not given proper instructions about what driving under the influence and driving while impaired mean. Even though West did not ask for these instructions, the court agreed that this was a significant mistake that affected the case. Due to this error, the court found that West deserved another chance to have his case heard, which means a new trial will take place. As a result, the decisions made in the trial are reversed, and the case gets remanded, which means it goes back to the lower court for a fresh start.

Continue ReadingF-2005-700

F-2004-1283

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1283, Marion Whitmore appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) After Two or More Prior Convictions, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentence for possession of methamphetamine from sixty-five years to thirty-five years. One judge dissented, arguing that the original sentence should not have been modified as any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1283

F-2005-597

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-597, Keandre Lee Sanders appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences for the robbery and shooting charges. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of what happened: Keandre Lee Sanders was found guilty by a jury of three serious crimes. He was sentenced to a total of 60 years after the jury decided how long he should go to prison for each crime. He thought the trial went unfairly and wanted to change his sentence. He had three main reasons for his appeal: 1. He asked the judge to delay the trial because he found new evidence that might help him. His lawyer thought there was a witness who could help, but the judge said no to delaying. The court believed waiting wouldn’t help because the witness was not cooperating. The court looked at everything and decided the lawyer did their best, so they did not grant this appeal point. 2. He believed that the charge of having a gun should not count separately from the other two charges, arguing that they were connected. The court found that having the gun was a separate act from the robbery and the shooting, so they denied this appeal as well. 3. The last point he made was that the jury was not told he would have to serve a certain amount of time before he could be considered for parole. After some review, the court agreed that he should have been told this but decided it was not enough to change his convictions. They did, however, change his sentences, reducing them from fifteen years to twelve years for the robbery charge and from forty years to thirty years for the shooting charge. The sentence for the firearm possession remained the same. The final decision was that while the court agreed with the convictions, they made changes to the length of two sentences. The court issued its order to finalize the decision after they filed their ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2005-597