In OCCA case No. RE-2002-1077, Tracy Allen Mitchon appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation and send the case back to the District Court to correct the written order regarding the time Mitchon had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1245, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but modify the sentence for conspiracy to ten years. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-809, the appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Russell Andrew Doza was found guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine and possessing a firearm during a felony. The trial took place in Logan County, where the judge sentenced him to ten years in prison for the drug charge and two years for the firearm charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. The main point of the appeal was whether the police officers had the right to search his car. The appellant argued that the officers were outside their legal area when they conducted the search. The court agreed with him, referencing a previous case that stated police cannot perform searches outside their jurisdiction. Because the evidence used against him was obtained unlawfully, the court found there was not enough evidence to support his convictions. Therefore, they reversed the lower court's decision and instructed that the case be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1041, Carlos Gomez Modesto appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine and Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count 1 with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming Count 2. One judge dissented. The case started when Modesto was found guilty in an earlier trial of trafficking both methamphetamine and cocaine. The jury decided his punishment for methamphetamine should be ten years and a fine of $50,000, and for cocaine, ten years and a fine of $25,000. However, during sentencing, the judge changed the punishment for methamphetamine to just four years, allowing both counts to run at the same time. Modesto raised several issues during his appeal, challenging the fairness of the trial. He claimed that: 1. The trial court didn't properly handle his request to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy, which is when a person can't be tried twice for the same crime. 2. He argued that having two convictions seemed unfair, like getting punished twice for the same wrongdoing. 3. He believed that the evidence presented was not enough to support his convictions. 4. Modesto complained about the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, suggesting they were harmful and unfair. 5. He pointed out that some decisions made by the trial court regarding evidence were wrong, which affected his right to a fair trial. After looking carefully at all the facts and arguments, the court agreed with Modesto on some points. They found that his two convictions did violate the rule against double punishment, so they decided to reverse the conviction for methamphetamine and instruct the lower court to dismiss that charge. However, they determined there was enough evidence to uphold the conviction for cocaine and decided to affirm that part. The court also recognized that the prosecutor's comparison of Modesto to a notorious criminal was inappropriate, but they concluded it wasn’t enough to change the trial's outcome. Lastly, although there were some mistakes in handling evidence, they decided those were not serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial. In summary, the court's final ruling was that Modesto's conviction for trafficking cocaine would stand, while the conviction for methamphetamine was reversed and dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-899, Edward John VanWoundenberg appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence (DUI) after having two or more previous convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. VanWoundenberg was found guilty of DUI in a trial where a jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison. He raised several arguments in his appeal. He argued there were mistakes in the jury instructions, his sentence should be changed, a clerical error needed to be fixed, and that the combined effect of all the mistakes denied him a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information from the trial. It decided that VanWoundenberg’s case did not need to be reversed or changed, but there was a clerical mistake in the court documents that had to be corrected. The court found that the evidence did not support giving the jury instructions about lesser charges, and so the trial court acted correctly by not providing those instructions. VanWoundenberg also argued that his felony DUI sentence should not have been increased under a general law since it had already been raised under a specific DUI law due to his previous offenses. The court explained that it was legal to enhance (or increase) his sentence using a general law because he had many previous different felony convictions within the required time. The court pointed out that one of VanWoundenberg's arguments was mistaken; the rules allowed for both the specific and general laws to apply in his case. Finally, the court amended the total costs listed in the original court documents to a lesser amount due to a fee that should not have been included. In the end, the court confirmed VanWoundenberg's conviction and corrected the clerical error, but found no other issues that needed to change the outcome of the case.
In OCCA case No. F 2000-321, Lourinda (Givens) Leggett appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Lourinda (Givens) Leggett was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter by a jury. She was given a 28-year prison sentence, with 15 years suspended. Afterward, she filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. On appeal, she raised two main errors. First, she argued that her lawyer should have presented evidence about battered woman syndrome, which could have helped her defense. Second, she claimed that the jury received confusing instructions regarding different defenses, which affected the trial's fairness. The court looked carefully at the case, including records and arguments from both sides. They agreed with Lourinda that her lawyer’s decision not to call an expert on battered woman syndrome was not a good choice and had negatively affected her defense. They believed that this choice made it hard to trust the jury's decision. Therefore, they reversed the trial court's decision and ordered a new trial. Since the court found merit in the first point raised by Lourinda, they didn't need to address the second error she mentioned. The court’s decision meant that Lourinda would get another chance in court to present her case.
In OCCA case No. C 2002-1460, Skinner appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to partially grant his appeal. The court found that the pleas of guilty to some charges were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. Skinner was not properly advised about the punishment he could face, and the fines he received were too high according to the law. Therefore, the court allowed him to withdraw his guilty pleas for certain counts and changed the fine on one of the counts to a correct amount. The court upheld the punishment for one count but denied the appeal for another. A judge dissented on some aspects of the case.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-946, Christopher Dwayne McGee appealed his conviction for distributing controlled substances and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that McGee should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. McGee was originally charged with several counts related to drug distribution in Stephens County. He pleaded guilty to all the charges and received a 30-year prison sentence with fines. After his plea, McGee argued that he did not receive good legal help and that he did not understand what he was agreeing to when he pleaded guilty. He also claimed that he should not be punished twice for the same crime. The main issue was about an agreement he had with the State regarding his plea. McGee believed that the charges would not be enhanced because the State agreed to drop certain parts of his case. However, he was later sentenced with enhancements due to prior felony convictions, which he felt was unfair. The State admitted that McGee's plea was based on a misunderstanding about the charges and enhancements. They suggested that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea, and the court agreed. As a result, the court decided that McGee could go back to the District Court to change his guilty plea.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1529, Daniel Kelly Orcutt appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Here's a summary: Daniel Kelly Orcutt was found guilty of Manslaughter in the First Degree by a jury. The trial was held in Creek County, and the judge sentenced him to fifty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Orcutt believed he had a fair trial, but he had several complaints about how things went during the trial. He argued that the trial court should not have allowed the jury to separate during their talks. He felt this decision was unfair and took away his rights to a fair trial because they could be influenced by outside information. He pointed out that he objected to this decision when it was made, but it still happened. Orcutt also complained that the prosecutor made comments about him not testifying, which he felt was wrong. He believed that he didn’t get all the information he needed from the state before the trial started, which made it difficult for him to defend himself. Furthermore, he felt the court restricted how he represented himself, even after allowing him to do so. The court agreed with Orcutt that these issues were important. They decided that these errors could lead to a different outcome if the trial were held again. Because of this, the judges in the OCCA decided that he would have a new trial so that he could have a fair chance to defend himself properly.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-552, Jack Leroy Helms appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Obscene Pictures of Minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Helms's conviction but to modify his sentence to two years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Helms was tried by a jury and found guilty of having illegal pictures of minors. The trial took place in Jefferson County. The jury recommended a 15-year sentence, and the trial judge sentenced Helms accordingly. However, Helms argued that he should have been charged under a different law that applied specifically to possession of child pornography, which would result in a shorter sentence. The court agreed that Helms should have been charged under the more specific statute, but they affirmed his conviction. They also decided that his imprisonment sentence should be reduced to two years instead of the original 15 years. Helms raised several issues during his appeal, claiming that he was unfairly treated during the trial, that there wasn't enough evidence against him, and that his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to uphold his conviction, as there were witnesses and online activities that indicated he had access to the illegal pictures. In the end, Helms's conviction was upheld, but changes were made to the judgment to show he was convicted under the correct law and his sentence was adjusted to be less severe. The decision allowed some correction but ultimately found in favor of the prosecution's case against Helms.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-532, James Jermaine Woodfork appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Domestic Abuse, and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold some of his convictions while reversing others and sending them back to the District Court for dismissal. One member of the court dissented. Woodfork had been found guilty of various charges after a jury trial. He received significant sentences for his convictions, including 25 years for Kidnapping and 30 years for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. However, he raised concerns about double jeopardy, arguing that his multiple convictions for similar offenses involving different victims should not have occurred. The court agreed with him on some counts and reversed those convictions. Additionally, the court examined claims of trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct. Even though the prosecutor made some inappropriate comments during the trial, the court concluded that these did not significantly affect the overall fairness of the trial or the jury's decision, so they did not lead to a reversal of the sentence. In summary, some of Woodfork's convictions were upheld, while others were reversed, and he was given a chance for those to be dismissed. This case highlights important legal principles about multiple charges and the rights of defendants in a criminal trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-653, Carole Jean Arnold appealed her conviction for Driving While Under the Influence and Driving While License is Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Carole Jean Arnold was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Payne County. The jury decided she should spend five years in prison and pay a $500 fine for driving while under the influence. For driving with a suspended license, the jury decided on one year in prison and another $500 fine. The trial judge ruled that the fines would be suspended, but Carole didn't agree with the conviction. In their review, the court looked at several issues that Carole raised. First, she argued that there was not enough evidence to prove she was intoxicated when she was driving. However, the court found that the evidence was strong enough. There were officers who testified that they smelled alcohol on her breath, noticed her speech was slurred, her eyes were bloodshot, and that she was having trouble standing up. Carole admitted to drinking alcohol before driving, which supported the jury's conclusion. Second, Carole claimed the trial court made a mistake by not correctly telling the jury about possible punishments. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the jury should have been aware of more options regarding punishment. Since the defense attorney did not object during the trial, it was still considered a major error that needed to be corrected. Because of this mistake, the court changed Carole's prison sentence to two years instead of the longer one originally given. The third issue Carole had was about a test called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which was used to check her level of intoxication. The court agreed that there were rules about when scientific evidence can be used at trials, and those rules were not followed when this test's results were allowed. However, the court also decided that this error was not serious enough to have changed the jury's decision, so it didn’t matter much in the end. Lastly, Carole felt her overall punishment was too harsh. Because the court already changed the length of her sentence due to the earlier mistake, they found that they did not need to make any other changes. In the end, the court upheld Carole's conviction but changed her sentence to two years in prison. One judge disagreed with modifying her sentence, believing the jury's maximum sentence was appropriate and that the results of the test were acceptable in court.
In OCCA case No. C 2002-1379, the petitioner appealed his conviction for kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the petitioner's application to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when the petitioner entered a guilty plea to the crime of kidnapping. He was sentenced to seventeen years in prison as part of a plea agreement. However, shortly after, the petitioner wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He filed a motion for this, but during the hearing, he was not present, even though he had the right to be there. His lawyer asked the court to move forward without him, believing it was best since the petitioner was already in custody. The court looked at whether the absence of the petitioner from this critical hearing was a serious mistake. The petitioner did not agree to waive his right to be present, which the court pointed out as important. The judges discussed that being absent from such a crucial part of the trial could lead to unfair treatment. While the State argued that the absence was not a big deal and didn't affect the outcome, the court disagreed. They emphasized that this hearing was meant to gather facts and needed the petitioner's presence. The court found that merely saying the absence was harmless was not enough in this case. The lawyer who represented the petitioner at the hearing did not provide evidence or firsthand statements from the petitioner, only mentioning a letter the petitioner had written earlier. The court raised concerns that the lawyer might not have properly consulted with the petitioner about not attending the hearing. Since the petitioner claimed he entered the plea without properly thinking it over and believed he had a valid defense, the case could not fall under rules that would let the court dismiss his request without consideration. The judges decided that the petitioner's right to a fair hearing had been violated because he was not there to fully participate and because his lawyer did not act effectively for him in this situation. Therefore, the court ruled that the case should go back to the district court to ensure the petitioner can have a complete hearing on his wish to withdraw his guilty plea.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-492, Scott Lee Fox appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Injury to a Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences, but reversed and dismissed the conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-24, Tomas Mendiola Bernal appealed his conviction for maintaining a place for keeping or selling drugs and three counts of delivering and distributing cocaine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for maintaining a place for selling drugs and ordered a new trial for that charge, but affirmed the convictions and sentences for delivering and distributing cocaine. One member of the court disagreed with some parts of the decision.
In OCCA case No. M-2002-263, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the appellant, who we will call #1, had several legal issues. He was found guilty of different crimes related to driving, like drinking and driving and having an open container of alcohol in his car. Because of these convictions, he received various punishments, including jail time and fines. #1 claimed that he should not have been punished multiple times for what he did, saying it violated his rights. He also believed that the punishment he received was too harsh and did not follow the law. The court looked at everything and decided that #1's convictions were valid and should stay. However, they also believed that the sentences should be changed. Instead of the original punishments, they modified them to be a total of 60 days, and all fines and costs were put on hold. This was a fair decision considering the circumstances, and it meant that #1 would not have to serve as much time as originally decided. The decision seemed mostly agreed upon by the judges, but one judge thought differently and did not agree with the majority's opinion.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-356, Feaster appealed his conviction for robbery and related charges. In a published decision, the court decided that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and granted his writ for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty pleas. One judge dissented, arguing that the motion to withdraw was filed too late and should be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-0993, a person appealed their conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the person's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when the person pled guilty in January 2000 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant they'd stay out of prison as long as they followed certain rules. However, in July 2002, the state claimed the person broke the rules by testing positive for methamphetamine during a drug test. During the hearing to decide if the suspended sentence should be revoked, the person's probation officer said that the test showed the person had methamphetamine in their system. The person then explained they had many health problems, including severe joint issues, high blood pressure, and a history of cancer. They also used a cough syrup prescribed by a doctor, which potentially contained ingredients that could cause a positive drug test. The probation officer, when asked, said he couldn’t be sure if the cough syrup was the reason for the positive test results. Because of this uncertainty about the cause of the positive test, the court found there wasn't enough proof that the person had broken probation rules. As a result, the court reversed the previous decision to revoke the suspended sentence, meaning the person did not have to serve that part of their sentence. The court instructed the lower court to dismiss the application to revoke.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1514, Montain Lamont Maxwell appealed his conviction for Robbery with Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Montain Lamont Maxwell was tried by a jury and found guilty of robbery using a firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 20 years in prison. Afterwards, he appealed his conviction, saying there were problems during his trial. First, Maxwell claimed the prosecution said things that made it seem like he was guilty for not speaking up during the trial. This goes against his right to remain silent, a protection given by the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the prosecutor asked improper questions and made unfair comments about his silence before and after his arrest. Second, Maxwell said the way he was identified as the robber wasn't reliable, and he argued that the trial court should have told the jury to be careful about believing eyewitness accounts. He also argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he committed the robbery with a dangerous weapon. Finally, Maxwell said his lawyer didn’t help him enough during the trial, which violated his rights. The court took a close look at all the problems raised by Maxwell. They found that the prosecution had indeed made mistakes regarding his right to stay quiet. They commented unfairly about his silence, which might have led the jury to think he was hiding something. The court also noted that the evidence against Maxwell came down to conflicting stories between him and the victim. The jury had a hard time reaching a decision and sent many notes during their deliberation. Because of the unfair treatment regarding his silence and the lack of a proper defense from his lawyer, the court decided these issues were serious enough that they couldn't ignore them. In the end, the court reversed Maxwell's conviction and ordered a new trial to make sure he gets a fair chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-708, Gary Don Caudill appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence. The original jury had recommended an 18-year sentence, but the district court imposed a 35-year sentence and a $2000 fine instead. Caudill argued that this was not fair because the court should not have given him a longer sentence than what the jury recommended. The court agreed with this claim, stating that the state had made a mistake because of a prior legal opinion that was later changed. As a result, Caudill's sentence was modified back to 18 years in prison with the same fine. The decision of the district court was affirmed, but his sentence was changed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-201, Robert Mark Stephens appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and Attempted Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Stephens was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County and was sentenced to fifteen years for robbery and one year for attempted kidnapping, with the sentences to run one after the other. He raised several issues for appeal. First, he argued that his right to due process was violated because the court did not order a professional examination to check if he was competent to stand trial. However, the court concluded that there were not enough facts to raise a doubt about his competency. Second, Stephens claimed the trial court abused its power by not allowing him to use a mental illness defense. The court found no error in this as Oklahoma law does not allow for a defense of diminished capacity in non-capital cases. Third, he said he did not get a fair trial because the judge did not permit jury instructions on his mental capacity, which he believed was necessary to explain his intent during the crime. The court agreed with the trial court's ruling, saying that there is no provision for mitigating evidence in such trials. Stephens also believed he had ineffective help from his lawyer, but the court found he did not prove this claim. Finally, he said the trial judge wrongly refused to consider concurrent sentences, which led to an abuse of discretion. The court acknowledged this point and modified his sentences so they would run at the same time. In summary, the court upheld the convictions but changed the way the sentences would be served, allowing Stephens to serve his time for both crimes together instead of separately.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-484, Kevin Eddy Bumgarner appealed his conviction for First-Degree Arson and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided Bumgarner’s sentence was excessive and modified it from 275 years to 45 years imprisonment. One judge dissented, stating that the original sentence reflected the jury's view of Bumgarner's actions.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-175, James Dale Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one of the counts. One judge dissented. Vaughn was found guilty of several charges after a police search of his home revealed drugs and a firearm. The police had a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant who claimed Vaughn was selling methamphetamine. During the search, officers discovered methamphetamine in various amounts, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. Vaughn argued that the search warrant was improperly issued because it relied on hearsay from the informant that was not verified. The court found that there was enough information to justify the warrant and allowed the evidence found during the search to be admitted in court. Additionally, Vaughn claimed the trial court should have required the state to reveal the informant's identity. However, the court decided that the informant's identity was not relevant to Vaughn's defense, and so did not need to be disclosed. Finally, Vaughn argued that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishment for one of his charges. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect and reduced the sentence for that particular charge, while upholding the convictions for the other charges. Thus, the overall decision allowed the convictions to stand, but changed the punishment for one count.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1488, Robert Wesley Choate appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a precursor, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction for manufacturing but reversed the conviction for possession of a precursor, which means that his punishment for that charge was dismissed. One member of the court dissented from this decision.