In OCCA case No. C-2004-1156, Timothy Mark Watkins appealed his conviction for child abuse and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-1017, Libera appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Libera's petition to withdraw his guilty plea and remand for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Stephen Mark Libera was charged for concealing stolen property in Tulsa County. He chose to waive a preliminary hearing and entered a guilty plea. During the plea, there was some confusion about what the consequences would be. Although there was mention of a possible deferred sentence (which would mean he might not have to serve time), Libera felt he was not given clear advice about what this plea meant for him. When he was sentenced, the court did not follow what a previous report suggested, which was to give him probation instead of prison time. Libera believed that if the recommendation by the pre-sentencing investigation (PSI) was not followed, he should be allowed to change his guilty plea. He felt he had been led to believe that probation would be granted, and when it wasn't, he wanted to withdraw his plea. The court agreed that he should have been given a chance to do so. Thus, they decided in favor of Libera, allowing him to withdraw his plea and sending the case back for further actions consistent with the new decision. One judge did not agree with this outcome.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-1108, Jonathan Andrew McCubbin appealed his conviction for four counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCubbin's petition for Writ of Certiorari and remanded the case for a new hearing on his application to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here's a summary of what happened: McCubbin entered a blind guilty plea, which means he agreed to plead guilty without a deal or knowing what his sentence would be. He was sentenced to fifty years in prison, but would serve only thirty years for each count, all at the same time. After some time, McCubbin wanted to take back his guilty plea and tried to do so by asking the court. He argued that his lawyer did not give him good legal help and that their interests were not the same; his lawyer seemed to be against him during the hearings. The court found that there was a true conflict between McCubbin and his lawyer. The lawyer was unable to defend him properly because they were arguing with each other over whether McCubbin should be allowed to withdraw his plea or not. Because of this conflict and the lack of good legal help, the court said McCubbin needed a new chance to withdraw his guilty plea. This meant the case would go back to the trial court for a proper hearing where he could have a different lawyer represent him.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-527, Christopher Dwayne McGee appealed his conviction for distribution of a controlled substance and conspiracy to distribute a controlled dangerous drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for conspiracy and dismiss that count due to insufficient evidence, while affirming the conviction for distribution. One judge dissented on certain issues. McGee was found guilty in the District Court of Stephens County for distributing a controlled substance and conspiring to distribute another. He received a twenty-year sentence and a fine for each count. He appealed his convictions based on five main arguments. First, McGee claimed there was not enough evidence to support his conspiracy conviction. The court agreed with this claim, stating that for a conspiracy to exist, there must be two parties who agreed to commit the crime. Since there was no evidence showing that another person was involved in the agreement with McGee, the conspiracy charge was dismissed. Second, McGee argued he was denied his right to present mitigating evidence to the jury. The court noted that character evidence is generally not allowed in non-capital cases, therefore finding his claim without merit. Third, McGee said he was denied the right to represent himself in court. However, the court found that he had withdrawn his request to act as his own attorney, so this claim was also dismissed. Fourth, he argued that he did not receive effective assistance from his attorney. The court concluded that McGee's lawyer had successfully achieved the dismissal of two other charges against him and did not fail in his responsibilities. Finally, McGee felt that he had been wrongly made to defend against his past convictions during the trial. The court explained that after a previous plea deal was canceled, his case was reset as if no plea had happened, and thus, he was not unfairly treated by needing to defend against prior offenses. In summary, the court affirmed McGee's conviction for distribution but reversed and dismissed the conspiracy conviction due to a lack of evidence.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-161, James Robert Bonomelli appealed his conviction for three counts of crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Bonomelli was found guilty of having child pornography, possessing a firearm as a felon, and having marijuana. The jury decided on long sentences, which added up to a total of 100 years in prison. Bonomelli claimed he did not have enough time to prepare a proper defense for his trial because the court did not let him postpone it. He also believed that the sentences were too harsh. After looking at the facts and Bonomelli's arguments, the court agreed that the judge should have allowed Bonomelli more time for his defense but decided that he did not prove this made his lawyer ineffective. However, they thought the total 100-year sentence was too much for him. They decided that the punishment should be reduced to 40 years in total, with all counts running at the same time instead of one after another. This means Bonomelli would spend a maximum of 40 years in prison instead of 100.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-78, Allen Eugene McCarthy appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarthy's request to withdraw his guilty plea for the DUI charge only, while affirming the rest of his sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. J-2005-542, S.H. appealed his conviction for being sentenced as an adult. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision, stating that there was not enough convincing evidence to support this adult sentencing. One judge dissented. The court found that S.H. should be sentenced as a youthful offender instead.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-1084, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, Darrell Robert Johnson was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury gave him a life sentence without the chance for parole for the first charge, and a fine for the second charge. He was unhappy with the way the trial went and believed mistakes were made that affected the outcome. One of the key mistakes he pointed out was that the jury had trouble reaching a unanimous decision. During their discussions, it became clear that one juror was not convinced of Johnson's guilt. The juror felt pressured by the others to change his mind, which made the situation problematic and unfair. This juror expressed confusion about the deliberation process in notes to the judge, which should have led to clearer instructions being given. The judge talked to the jurors about what deliberation meant but did not provide the specific charge that addresses situations where juries are stuck. This is typically done to ensure jurors understand they shouldn't feel forced to give in just to agree and go home. After discussing their options, the jury still couldn't agree, and the judge sent them back to deliberate further without giving a proper instruction. Eventually, the jury reached a verdict, but one juror said it wasn’t his honest opinion that the defendant was guilty. The judge had to decide if they could accept that verdict or if they needed to keep discussing. The court found that sending the jury back without the proper instruction was a mistake that affected Johnson's right to a fair trial. It was determined that the pressure on the juror likely influenced his decision to agree with the group. In the end, the court decided that because the jury had not been properly instructed, Darrell's convictions should be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial. This means that the mistakes made during the trial could not be allowed to stand, and Darrell Johnson deserved another chance to prove his side in court. The judges had differing opinions on this decision, with some agreeing and some disagreeing on whether the trial was managed correctly. One judge believed that the trial judge handled the situation well and didn’t see a reason to reverse the ruling. However, the majority of the court found the errors significant enough to require a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-939, the appellant appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentences for both convictions to seven years each, affirming the judgment in other respects. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-643, Earnest Alphonzo Lee appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence to fifteen years. One judge dissented. Earnest Alphonzo Lee was found guilty by a jury of Attempted First Degree Burglary. The jury believed he deserved to go to prison for twenty years, and the trial court agreed with their decision. Earnest felt this was unfair, so he appealed his case. In his appeal, Earnest raised several issues he thought were wrong during his trial. The first issue was about something called an “evidentiary harpoon.” This means that he thought the arresting officer made a comment that brought up Earnest’s right to stay silent after he was arrested. The court looked closely at this and decided it was not a big deal because there was a lot of strong evidence proving he was guilty, which made the officer’s comment not harmful. The second issue was about a juror named Barker that Earnest wanted removed from the jury, but the judge did not agree. The court said this did not cause any problems since Earnest’s lawyer could have removed the juror another way. For the third issue, Earnest believed that the judge did not explain the punishment ranges to the jury correctly. The court agreed and said the law was not followed properly when the jury decided on the punishment. So, they changed Earnest’s sentence to fifteen years. The fourth issue claimed the prosecutor did something wrong during the trial, but the court found that this did not affect the outcome of the trial since there was still a lot of strong evidence against Earnest. In the fifth issue, the court believed there was enough evidence for the jury to find Earnest guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the sixth issue was about whether all the errors together were so bad that Earnest did not get a fair trial. The court decided that the problems were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court agreed that the trial had some mistakes but decided that the most important issue was the incorrect instructions about the punishment. They changed Earnest’s sentence to 15 years but said the rest of the trial was fair.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-907, David Wayne Robbins appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modify his sentences to fifty years for each of the first two counts, which would be served one after the other. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-871, George Shelton, Jr., appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Shelton's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. George Shelton was found guilty after a trial. He was accused of hiding stolen things and had a history of past crimes, which meant he could face a heavier punishment. The jury decided on a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Shelton thought this punishment was too harsh and argued that what the prosecutor did was unfair because they brought up his past crimes during the trial. He believed this was done because he had tried to defend himself. The court looked very closely at everything that happened. They thought there wasn’t enough evidence to show that the prosecutor acted unfairly against Shelton. They believed that the facts presented during the case were enough to prove he was guilty. However, they agreed with Shelton that his punishment was too much. They decided to change his sentence to five years instead of thirty-five. In short, the court upheld the conviction of Shelton but changed his punishment to be less severe. While one judge agreed with the conviction and the sentence reduction, they did not think the modification was correct and chose to disagree.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-445, Dewayne Eugene Ring appealed his conviction for attempted burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Ring should have a chance to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not eligible for a suspended sentence due to his prior convictions. The court found that his previous felony convictions meant that part of his sentence that was suspended was void. Therefore, they ordered that the lower court should give him a chance to withdraw his plea. If he chose not to withdraw it, the court was to make him serve the full sentence. One judge dissented in this opinion.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-957, Jeremy Clarence Rankin appealed his conviction for various charges. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for Certiorari and remanded the case to the District Court for a new hearing on Rankin's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge dissented, stating that he did not believe there was evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the original plea was made knowingly and voluntarily.
In OCCA case No. C-2004-903, David Wayne Laughlin appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Laughlin’s request to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case for a new hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-368, an individual appealed his conviction for multiple counts of sexual crimes against his daughter. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Second Degree Rape, Forcible Sodomy, and Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation, but reversed the conviction for Lewd Molestation. One judge dissented on the Forcible Sodomy count. Tommie Loyd Payne was charged with numerous sexual offenses in Muskogee County, with the jury acquitting him of 97 counts but convicting him on 4. The court sentenced him to a total of 70 years in prison, with some sentences to be served one after the other. Payne raised several issues on appeal. He argued that the conviction for Forcible Sodomy violated double jeopardy because the jury instructions blended different elements of the crimes, which could have led to a wrongful conviction based on the same actions. However, the court found that the jury's understanding of the separate charges made this error negligible, so the convictions stood. He also contended that Lewd Molestation should not be punished because it was a lesser included offense of Rape by Instrumentation. The court agreed that both charges referred to the same act, which violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, resulting in the reversal of the conviction for Lewd Molestation. Finally, Payne pointed out that the trial court did not complete a pre-sentence investigation before sentencing, which was a mandatory requirement. However, the lack of this investigation was found to be a harmless error. Overall, the court upheld the serious convictions against Payne while addressing significant legal standards regarding double jeopardy and trial procedures.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-666, the appellant appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to two years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case involved Steven Randel Hargrove, who was found guilty by a jury for not registering as a sex offender, which is a legal requirement for people with certain criminal backgrounds. He was sentenced to five years in prison by the judge, following the jury's recommendation. Hargrove appealed, arguing several points regarding his trial and conviction. First, he claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intentionally failed to register. He felt this violated his rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that while it was unclear if he had intentionally failed to register, there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude otherwise. Therefore, his argument on this point was denied. Second, Hargrove argued that he did not get good representation from his lawyer. He felt his lawyer made mistakes that harmed his case. The court agreed that his lawyer should have tried to keep certain information about Hargrove's past offenses from the jury. This information likely influenced the jury to give him a harsher sentence. As a result, the court recognized this as a significant issue. Finally, Hargrove believed his sentence was too harsh and that the mistakes made during the trial denied him a fair trial. Since the court agreed with him about the ineffective assistance of counsel, they decided to change his sentence from five years to two years in prison. In summary, the court upheld Hargrove's conviction but reduced his prison time due to the errors made during his trial. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing there was not enough proof of Hargrove's intent to fail to register as a sex offender.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-593, the Appellant appealed his conviction for revoking his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modify the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when the Appellant, after pleading guilty to Sexual Battery, was sentenced to five years in prison, which was suspended under certain conditions. However, he did not follow these conditions, leading to the State filing a motion to revoke his suspended sentence multiple times. Initially, the Appellant missed treatment sessions, failed to pay necessary fees, and showed a lack of effort to engage in his treatment. After some violations, he had a short revocation of sixty days. Later, the State found he had violated other conditions, such as not registering as a sex offender and changing his residence without informing his probation officer. During the hearing, the judge decided that the Appellant had not followed the rules, thus revoking his suspended sentence and requiring him to serve five years in prison. The Appellant argued that since he had already lost sixty days, his remaining time should be less than five years. The State agreed, stating it should be four years and ten months instead. The court acknowledged the Appellant’s previous short revocation and made the necessary adjustment to his sentence length. Although the Appellant argued the full revocation was too harsh, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision, stating that it was within their discretion to revoke the sentence based on the Appellant's repeated failures to comply with probation rules. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke the Appellant's remaining suspended sentence but corrected the duration of time he was required to serve.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-1334, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including unlawful possession of a controlled substance, possession of a firearm, and assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari in part and deny it in part. One judge dissented. Rodney Taylor Glenn faced charges in three different cases in the District Court of Washington County. He made a plea agreement, which led to some charges being dropped in return for him waiving a preliminary hearing and pleading no contest. The judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to several years in prison for each of his charges. Later, Glenn wanted to withdraw his plea because he believed there were issues with how it was handled. He argued that the court did not check if he was mentally capable of understanding his plea, that there was not enough evidence for some of the charges, and that he was misinformed about the possible punishments. Glenn also claimed that he did not get the benefit of his agreement and that he did not have effective help from his lawyer. The court reviewed Glenn's arguments. It concluded that Glenn was competent to enter his plea and that there was enough evidence for most of the charges. However, the court agreed that there was not sufficient evidence to support one of the assault charges, which meant Glenn could withdraw his plea for that specific charge. Additionally, Glenn was correctly advised about some of the punishments but misinformed about others, which led to the decision to let him withdraw his plea on those counts as well. The court ultimately decided to keep some of the sentences but allowed Glenn to withdraw his plea for the assault charges and the possession of a firearm while committing a felony based on the errors found. In conclusion, the judgment and sentence were affirmed in part and reversed in part. Thus, Glenn was allowed to change his plea on certain counts, while other parts of his case remained unchanged.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-82, Billy Dale Lathrop appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine, possession of precursor chemicals, and possession of paraphernalia, but to reverse the convictions for child endangerment. Three judges dissented regarding one of the convictions.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-1117, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and three counts of Assault with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the denial of the appellant's request to be certified as a Youthful Offender but reversed the decision regarding the Assault charges, allowing those to be tried as a Youthful Offender. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged as an adult with serious crimes, including murder. The appellant wanted to be treated as a Youthful Offender, which would mean he could receive rehabilitation instead of severe punishment. A special judge conducted hearings to decide if the appellant could be certified as a Youthful Offender, meaning he would be tried in a different system designed for young people. During the hearings, expert witnesses gave differing opinions about whether the appellant could be helped and rehabilitated if treated as a Youthful Offender. One expert believed the chances were good, while others thought the appellant needed more time to be rehabilitated. Based on all the information and expert opinions, the judge decided not to certify the appellant as a Youthful Offender and instead required him to be tried as an adult for the murder charge. On appeal, the appellant argued three main points: first, that the judge made a mistake by not certifying him as a Youthful Offender, second, that the judge should have removed himself from the case, and third, that he should not have been charged as an adult for the Assault with Intent to Kill counts since those should be treated as Youthful Offender crimes. The court looked at the evidence presented in the trial, including testimonies from experts and details of the appellant's life. The conclusion was that the judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding the appellant should be tried as an adult for the murder charge. However, the court did agree with the appellant concerning the Assault with Intent to Kill charges; since he was between 15 and 17 and those charges are typically handled differently, the court ordered that he be processed as a Youthful Offender for those counts. In the end, the court upheld the decision regarding the murder charge but reversed the decision on the Assault with Intent to Kill charges, indicating that the appropriate course was for those to be treated under the Youthful Offender system.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1297, Thomas Edward Gale appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold most of his convictions but reversed one of them. One judge dissented. During the trial, Gale was found guilty of making methamphetamine and possessing certain substances that can be used to create drugs. He received a long prison sentence and a hefty fine. Gale argued that he should not have been punished twice for having two different precursor substances without a permit and also claimed that some of the evidence against him was not strong enough. The court found that Gale's actions of making meth and having precursor substances without a permit were different crimes, so it was okay for him to be convicted for both. However, they agreed that he should not have been convicted for both types of precursor substances because that counted as one crime. So, they reversed that part of the decision. The court decided that there was enough evidence to prove that Gale was keeping a place where drugs were used and sold. They also concluded that his sentence and fine were appropriate. In the end, the court upheld Gale's sentences for most of the crimes but dismissed one of the precursor possession convictions.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1278, James Lorenzo Devers appealed his conviction for Inducing a Minor to Engage in Prostitution and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions with some modifications. One judge dissented. Devers was tried in Tulsa County and found guilty of multiple charges involving sexual misconduct with teenage boys. The jury sentenced him to life imprisonment with fines after considering testimonies from three victims who claimed Devers offered them money to perform sexual acts. Despite some conflicting details regarding the timing of his proposal, the evidence against Devers was strong, including his own confession about some of the offenses. The appeal included several arguments. One claim was about the trial court's decision not to separate the charges for trial. The court maintained that the offenses were connected and reflected a consistent pattern of behavior, justifying their joint consideration. The court found no prejudice in trying the counts together. Devers also argued the jury was given incorrect instructions regarding the punishment for his indecent proposal charge. However, the court noted that the error did not change the outcome since he would have received the same sentence even under the correct guideline. Another point of appeal was regarding whether the jury was informed about parole eligibility. The court ruled the instructions were appropriate since the charges in question did not include those that required serving a certain percentage of the sentence before being eligible for parole. The court acknowledged that there was a mixing of punishment provisions in the instructions but decided any fines would be adjusted because of that error. Ultimately, after reviewing all claims, the court upheld the convictions but modified the fine amount for Devers' offenses. The judgment was affirmed with modifications, while one judge expressed disagreement with some aspects of the decision.
In OCCA case No. C 2004-69, McCarroll appealed his conviction for unlawful distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and possession of CDS in the presence of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarroll's petition for a writ of certiorari. One judge dissented. The case involved Corey Dion McCarroll, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges, which included selling drugs near a daycare center and having drugs while a child was present. McCarroll was sentenced to a total of 60 years in prison, with some hefty fines. After feeling that he didn't get a fair trial and claiming he was innocent, McCarroll asked the judge to let him change his plea. McCarroll raised several reasons for his appeal. He argued that the charges for selling drugs near a daycare didn't apply because the law was not in effect at the time of his actions. He believed that his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly, and he felt the judge was unfair in giving him consecutive sentences, which made them seem too harsh. McCarroll also claimed that his lawyer didn't represent him properly. The court reviewed all the details of the case and decided favorably for McCarroll. They found that the law didn't fully apply to his situation when he was charged with the first two counts. Therefore, the court changed these charges to a different type of drug offense that was valid at that time. They also modified the sentences, stating that some of them should run at the same time (concurrently) rather than one after the other (consecutively). Overall, while the court granted McCarroll some relief in his appeal by changing the charges and modifying the sentences, they did not agree that his lawyer's help was inadequate enough for his plea to be withdrawn. Thus, the decisions were adjusted to ensure fairness while still holding McCarroll accountable.
In OCCA case No. J-2004-741, C. C. appealed his conviction for attempted larceny of domestic game. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling and clarify that the total restitution to be paid by C. C. and his co-defendant is $8,000. One judge dissented.