In OCCA case No. F 2001-1348, Holly Ann Glasgow appealed her conviction for two counts of Robbery by Force and Fear. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on Count One and remand it to the district court to change the charge to Receiving Stolen Property with a reduced sentence. The conviction on Count Two was affirmed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-9, Amy Michelle Green appealed her conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Amy was found guilty after a trial where the jury decided that she was guilty of having illegal drugs and drug-related items. The jury decided her punishment should be ten years in prison for the drugs and one year for the drug paraphernalia. The judge in the trial court ordered that she serve these sentences one after the other, making it a total of eleven years. Amy argued that there were mistakes made during her trial that made her punishment too severe. One big issue was that a day planner with a graphic photo of her was accepted as evidence, even though it was meant to prove she controlled the hotel room where it was found. She argued that the planner was unfair and should not have been used against her since other personal items also proved her control over the room. The court agreed that the day planner shouldn't have been used to influence the jury because it could lead to unfair judgment against her. They believed that the mistakes in her trial did affect the outcome, leading to an excessive sentence. Therefore, they changed her sentence to six years for the controlled substance charge to be served at the same time as her one-year sentence for the paraphernalia. Overall, the court kept her conviction but lessened the time she had to serve in prison.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-1506, Jose Fajardo appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Fajardo was found guilty in a trial held in July 2001, where the jury decided he should go to prison for five years for Lewd Molestation and fifteen years for Indecent Proposal, with the sentences to be served one after the other. He appealed these decisions. Fajardo argued nine different reasons why his trial was unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, like not allowing his lawyer to question a juror properly, which he said made it hard for him to get a fair trial. He also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job because important witnesses were not there during the trial. Another point he made was that charging him with two separate crimes instead of one was unfair. After looking at everything, the court decided that one specific mistake was serious enough to warrant a new trial. The court found that a special advocate, who was allowed to help the victim during the trial, should not have been there because there was no law allowing that in this type of case. The special advocate acted in a very active role and helped the prosecution, which made the trial feel unfair to Fajardo. Because this was a big mistake that affected the fairness of the trial, the court ordered a new trial. The other arguments made by Fajardo did not need to be looked at since this one reason was enough to lead to a new trial.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-174, the appellant appealed her conviction for various crimes related to embezzlement and forgery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, which was suspended, meaning she would not go to prison immediately if she followed certain conditions. These conditions included paying back over $35,000 to the victim of her crimes as restitution, reporting to a probation officer, and not changing her residence without permission. In 1997, the state said the appellant broke the rules of her probation by failing to report to her probation officer, changing her residence without permission, and not paying her restitution as required. A judge found that she did violate her probation, but there were multiple delays in resolving her punishment, which lasted about four and a half years. In 2001, the appellant missed a court hearing, and the court issued a warrant for her arrest. After her arrest in January 2002, a final hearing took place where the judge ordered her to serve the full five years of her sentences and added extra fees for sheriff's costs. The appellant then appealed this decision, proposing several arguments against the court's order: 1. She argued that the sheriff's fees were imposed unlawfully and violated her rights. 2. She claimed the restitution amount was uncertain and should not be required. 3. She believed the court could not revoke her suspended sentence after such a long time. 4. She felt her due process rights were violated because the imposed punishment was excessive. After reviewing the case, the court agreed with some of the appellant's points. It decided that the sheriff's fees were not legally appropriate because they cannot be added after a sentence has been given. They also found that appellant’s arguments about the restitution were too late because those challenges should have been made back in 1995 when the restitution was set. However, the court did agree with the appellant that it was too long between when she was sentenced and when her probation was revoked; thus, they ordered that her two five-year sentences should run at the same time (concurrently) instead of one after the other (consecutively). In conclusion, the court modified the earlier order by removing the sheriff's fees and adjusted how long the appellant would be imprisoned.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1375, the individual appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Theft of a Debit Card, Grand Larceny, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, and others. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified the sentence for Grand Larceny in one count due to an error. One member of the court dissented. The case began when the individual pled guilty to several offenses on December 5, 2000. He was given sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning he would not have to serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, on September 25, 2001, the State of Oklahoma said he violated those rules by not reporting to his probation officer and committing another crime, which led to a hearing. During the hearing, the judge decided to revoke his suspended sentences. The appellant argued that his punishment for Grand Larceny was too harsh since it violated the rules for sentencing that say he should not have gotten more than a year in jail for that specific crime. The court agreed that the original sentence was incorrect but also ruled that it did not harm the individual too much since his other sentences were still valid. The individual also claimed that he was unfairly required to pay for restitution he believed he should not have been responsible for, but the court found he did not follow the proper steps to challenge that. Lastly, he argued that his overall sentences were excessive, but the court determined that since the sentences were within a reasonable range and he had indeed violated his probation, there was no unfairness in the judge's decisions. So, the court affirmed most of his sentences and ordered a correction for the incorrect Grand Larceny sentence, which should only require one year of confinement.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1517, Paul Nathan Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug offenses, including Attempt to Manufacture Methamphetamine and Possession of Methamphetamine Within 1000 Feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's convictions and sentences but vacated the fine imposed for one of the charges. One judge dissented. The case involved Johnson being found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine and having it near a school. He was also charged with having a gun while committing these crimes and having tools used for drug-making. The trial judge gave Johnson a long sentence and hefty fines based on the jury's recommendations. Johnson raised several complaints in his appeal. First, he argued that being convicted for both trying to make meth and having it near a school was unfair. The court decided that both charges were different enough that he could be found guilty of both without it being double punishment. Next, Johnson claimed there wasn't enough proof that he had a gun ready to use while making drugs. However, the court found that there was enough evidence showing he had the gun where he could easily get to it. Johnson also argued that he didn't really start making meth yet. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence showed he was past just planning and was actively attempting to make the drug. Finally, Johnson felt that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the judge acted within their rights in giving Johnson the sentences and fines, except for one fine, which they deemed not allowed by the law. In the end, the court confirmed most of Johnson's convictions and sentences but removed the extra fine related to one of the charges.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-947, the appellant appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the matter to the District Court of Noble County for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The story begins when the appellant entered a guilty plea for indecent exposure in 1991 and was given a suspended sentence. This means he wouldn't serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, in 1999, the State said he had committed another crime while on probation and wanted to take away his suspended sentence. During the revocation hearing, it was discovered that when the appellant was sentenced, he should not have been given a suspended sentence at all because of his prior convictions. According to Oklahoma law, if someone has three or more felony convictions, they aren't allowed to receive a suspended sentence. The court noted that both the appellant and the State were aware of his criminal history, and no evidence was presented to show that he was eligible for a suspended sentence. In fact, the plea agreement that he entered into was not legal under the law. Because of these issues, the court decided that the appellant's original judgment and sentence should be vacated, meaning it was canceled. This allows the appellant a chance to withdraw his guilty plea, which he can do if he wants to go to trial for the indecent exposure charge again. If he chooses not to withdraw his plea, he will then be sentenced again, but this time, it will be done right and in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the court took this action to ensure that everything was done fairly and legally, giving the appellant a proper opportunity to have his case heard correctly in the District Court. The ruling was important in maintaining the rules around sentencing and ensuring that people with multiple convictions are treated based on the law.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-652, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Second Degree Burglary, First Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, Larceny of an Automobile, and Robbery with a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal in part by modifying some of his sentences. However, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences for the other offenses. One judge dissented from the decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-793, Robert Dale Marlow appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Rape, Forcible Sodomy, and First Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of the convictions to Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation and also modified the sentences for the remaining convictions. One judge dissented. Marlow was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses. The jury decided to give him a very long punishment of 100 years for each of the five crimes, which they all ran one after the other, making a total of 500 years. In the appeal, Marlow pointed out several issues with his trial. First, he argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because the judge allowed the jury to hear about another crime that wasn’t related to what he was accused of. This might have made the jury think he was a bad person and influenced their decision. Second, he said the jury was not properly instructed about one of the charges. The charge of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation did not include an important detail about “bodily harm.” Because of this, the court acknowledged that he should have been found guilty of a lesser crime instead. They also talked about how the prosecutor brought in information about other incidents that happened at a different time, which they believed could confuse the jury and affect the fairness of the trial. After looking carefully at everything, the court decided that the conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation should be changed to Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation, and they gave him a new sentence of 20 years for this crime. The other convictions were kept but the sentences were reduced to 40 years each for the remaining counts. All of the sentences will still be served one after the other. This review shows how important it is for trials to be fair, with accurate charges and instructions provided to the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-338, Gene Paul Ray appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Paul Ray was found guilty of two counts of Lewd Molestation but was not guilty on six other related charges. The jury gave him a punishment of ten years for each count, and those sentences would be served one after the other. Ray appealed for many reasons. He first argued that it was wrong for a special advocate to help prosecute him. He believed this went against his rights. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the advocate was not supposed to be involved in his case based on the law. The advocate acted like a second lawyer against Ray, which was unfair. Next, Ray claimed that the court made a mistake by allowing an expert to speak about “child sexual accommodation syndrome” before the victims testified. The court found that this was not done properly and that it could have made the jury more likely to believe the victims’ stories without proper evidence. Ray also said that it was wrong for the court to allow the parents of the child victims to testify about what their children said. This meant the jury heard claims of abuse more times than they should have, making the children's stories seem more believable than they might be. Ray argued that he was also unfairly treated when the court allowed the prosecution to talk about his past drinking problems to attack his character. The court agreed that this kind of information shouldn’t have been used in that way, especially since the prosecution did not show it related to the case. Finally, Ray argued that all these mistakes added up to make it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The court agreed and decided that the combination of these errors meant he wasn't treated fairly in the trial. In summary, the court decided to reverse Ray's convictions and ordered a new trial so that he could have a fair chance to defend himself in light of the mistakes that were made during the original trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1230, a person appealed his conviction for attempted second-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. The person, who was found guilty of trying to break into a garage, admitted to the police that he was looking for tools to fix his car. However, the court determined that this was not a good enough reason to justify his actions in attempting to commit burglary, so the evidence supported his conviction. The appellant raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction, and claimed that two of his previous convictions, which were used to enhance his sentence, came from the same incident. He also argued that the introduction of some unfair evidence during the trial and the instruction given to the jury resulted in a higher sentence than warranted. Another point of contention was that a new law reducing penalties for certain non-violent offenders should apply to him. However, the court found that this new law could not be applied to his case because it was not stated that it should apply to past cases. Finally, he claimed that the cumulative errors in his trial affected the fairness of the verdict, but the court found that the only issue that warranted a change was the irrelevant evidence that influenced the length of his sentence. In summary, the court agreed that some aspects of the trial weren't fair, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years instead of thirty, but it upheld the conviction itself.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-936, John Edward Schoonover appealed his conviction for Committing or Permitting Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. John Edward Schoonover and his wife, Gilda, were charged with causing the death of a child they were trying to adopt. The trial revealed that on the day of the incident, both parents were in different locations when the child suffered a fatal injury. They gave unclear accounts about the events leading to the child's death and did not witness the actual injury. The state accused the Schoonovers of child abuse, stating that they had been considering canceling the adoption due to the child’s behavior issues. During the trial, there was a significant focus on a cassette tape that John Schoonover had asked his daughter to keep, which he claimed would prove that Gilda was responsible. The trial court allowed the prosecutor to change the charges, permitting the jury to consider whether the couple committed the murder or simply allowed it to happen. The jury convicted both on the basis of this alternative theory. John Schoonover argued that the trial court made multiple errors, including allowing this change after the evidence was presented. The court found that the evidence did not support the theory that John Schoonover knowingly allowed child abuse to happen. There was no proof that he knew of any potential for harm or that he could have stopped it. Because the jury had to consider multiple theories in their decision without clear evidence supporting one over the others, the court decided it was impossible to determine how the jury reached its conclusion. The final decision was to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-1070, Billy Joe Baldwin appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Feloniously Pointing a Weapon, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Baldwin's suspended sentences but modified the sentences to one year revoked with the remainder suspended, to run concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-1120, Mitchell Wayne Pate appealed his conviction for Felony Omission to Provide for a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the partial revocation of his suspended sentence. The State agreed that the appeal had merit, and the court changed the previous decision to state that only one year and six months of Pate's suspended sentence is revoked.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-503, Derrick L. Jethroe appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0911, the Appellant appealed his conviction for burglary and larceny of an automobile. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order from the lower court regarding the Appellant's participation in Drug Court. One judge dissented. In this case, the Appellant, after pleading guilty to burglary and larceny, had his original sentence changed to a suspended sentence with probation requirements. He was required to attend drug counseling and submit to drug tests. However, the State later claimed that he did not complete the agreed program. During the hearing about this issue, there was confusion about whether it was a revocation of his suspended sentence or a termination from Drug Court. The evidence showed uncertainty about the Appellant's actual participation in Drug Court. The court noted that it could not determine if the lower court had abused its discretion due to the confusion during the hearings. Ultimately, since it was unclear if the Appellant was appropriately part of the Drug Court, the higher court reversed the lower court's decision and instructed to dismiss the case instead of continuing with the termination.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-655, Robert Leroy Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Leroy Martin was found guilty of serious crimes by a jury. The judge gave him life imprisonment for rape, fifty years for robbery, and twenty years for burglary, and said he had to serve these sentences one after the other. Martin then appealed this decision. During the appeal, the court looked closely at the case and the arguments made. They considered several points raised by Martin. The first point was about the instructions the jury received during the trial about burglary. The court found this was not a mistake that affected the trial unfairly because Martin’s explanation was different from that of another case. The second point Martin made was about the jurors not getting complete information on the punishments they could choose for each crime. However, the court said Martin did not object during the trial, so he couldn’t claim this as an error now. The third and final point discussed was whether the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that the long sentences felt excessive for the circumstances of the case. In the end, the court said Martin would still be found guilty but changed the way the sentences would be served from one after the other to at the same time. One judge disagreed with changing the sentences, believing the original decision by the trial judge should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-785, Sammy Dewain Haas appealed his conviction for Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Sammy Dewain Haas faced serious charges for driving while drunk and for driving when his license was suspended. He went to trial in Beckham County, where a jury found him guilty. The punishment was set at ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine for the drunk driving charge, and one year and a $500 fine for the driving under suspension charge. The sentences were to be served at the same time. Haas raised several issues on appeal. First, he pointed out that the prosecutor wrongly argued that the jury should think about what he might do in the future instead of what he did this time. The court did not think this was a serious mistake that required a new trial. Second, he claimed that the jury should have been told about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired, but the court found that the evidence did not support that. Haas also said the judge should have given instructions about using circumstantial evidence, which is when a conclusion is drawn based on the surrounding facts instead of direct evidence. While the court agreed that the instructions should have been given, they ruled that this mistake didn't affect the overall outcome of the trial. Finally, the court ordered that the official record be changed to correctly state that Haas's sentences were to run together, not one after the other. In the end, the court upheld the trial’s decision, meaning Haas would remain convicted and serve his sentence as planned.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-749, Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. appealed his conviction for the revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Lloyd Samuel Heath, Jr. had originally entered a guilty plea for Second Degree Burglary and Concealing Stolen Property in 1993. He was given three years of imprisonment on both charges, but these sentences were suspended, meaning he wouldn’t go to jail if he followed certain rules. However, he committed another crime in 1993, which violated the terms of his suspended sentences. In 1994, the State applied to revoke his suspended sentences because of this new crime. There was a significant delay before the hearing actually took place. Heath was not given a hearing until 2000, which was almost six years after the application to revoke was filed. He argued that the State did not act quickly enough and that this delay meant the revocation should not happen. The State admitted that they had made a mistake and agreed with Heath’s concerns about the delay. The court agreed with Heath’s argument and decided to reverse the order that revoked his suspended sentence. They also instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. The decision meant that Heath’s original sentences were not enforced, and he would not have to serve them because the State did not handle the process in a timely manner.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-171, Emily Dowdy appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Emily Dowdy was found guilty of causing a death while driving under the influence of alcohol. Her trial took place in January 2001, and she was sentenced to 25 years in prison. After her conviction, she appealed, arguing ten different points about why her trial was unfair. First, she claimed that she should not have been tried again because of double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. However, the appellate court said that this was not the case here because the state did not purposefully try to get a mistrial. Second, Dowdy wanted to present a defense that she was involuntarily intoxicated, meaning she did not intend to be drunk, but the court ruled that she could not do this, which the appellate court found was a mistake. This mistake was very important and led to the decision to give her a new trial. The appellate court emphasized that everyone has the right to defend themselves and present their story in court, which Dowdy was not allowed to do. The other points raised by Dowdy, such as claims of unfair trial processes, bias from the judge, and other trial errors, were not addressed because the court believed that the preclusion of her intoxication defense was enough to warrant a new trial. In the end, the appellate court said Dowdy should have another opportunity to present her case to a jury where she could defend herself fully. The judge's decision not to allow her intoxication defense to be presented was seen as very serious and unfair, leading the court to reverse the earlier judgment and order a new trial.
In OCCA case No. C-2001-1425, Byron Lynn White appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on White's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. White dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-985, Karyn Jo Webb appealed her conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Karyn Jo Webb was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. She believed her lawyer did not help her properly during the trial. Karyn said her lawyer did not look into important medical evidence that might show she was innocent. She also thought her lawyer did not question the state’s medical experts well and missed gathering good character references that could help her side of the case. The court looked carefully at all the information from the trial and decided that Karyn’s lawyer did not perform well. They concluded that he was not able to act as a good defense lawyer, which is why Karyn should get a new trial. The main issue was that without a medical expert, her lawyer could not effectively fight against the accusations that she harmed the child. Therefore, the court said Karyn deserved another chance to prove her case.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.
In OCCA case No. RE-2001-649, RE-2001-650, the appellant appealed his conviction for revoking a suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of the suspended sentences but instructed the lower court to correct the time remaining on one of the sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved an individual who had previously been convicted of pointing a firearm and was given a ten-year sentence that was suspended, meaning he did not have to go to jail right away if he followed the rules set by the court. Unfortunately, the appellant broke several of these rules, which led to the first part of his suspended sentence being revoked after five years. Later, he committed new offenses while still on probation, including not reporting to his probation officer and testing positive for drugs. Because of these additional violations, the state filed applications to revoke the remainder of his suspended sentence. In court hearings, the appellant was given chances to show he could follow the rules, but he did not meet the requirements set by the court, leading to the revocation of both suspended sentences. The court found there was enough evidence to show he had violated his probation. However, the appellant argued that the court made a mistake by sentencing him to serve a full five years in one part of his case when he had less than five years left. The state agreed with this point, and the appeals court ruled to correct the time he should actually serve. Overall, the court decided that the revocation was justified due to multiple violations. The case shows the importance of following court rules after a suspended sentence is given.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-336, Roger Allen Eddy, Jr. appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, reverse his convictions for possession of a precursor substance and possession of methamphetamine, and modify his sentence for possession of a firearm to five years. One member of the court dissented.