State of Oklahoma Archives - Page 22 of 23

F-2001-230

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 27, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-230, Shihee Hason Daughrity appealed his conviction for two counts of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon and one count of False Personation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions on the robbery counts but reversed the conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Daughrity was tried along with another person and was found guilty of robbing someone while using a dangerous weapon and falsely claiming to be someone else. The judge sentenced him to a long time in prison and also made him pay fines. Daughrity thought the trial was unfair and wanted to appeal. The court looked at the reasons Daughrity gave for why he thought he should win his appeal. He questioned whether there was enough proof for the False Personation charge because there wasn't clear evidence that he impersonated an actual person. The court reviewed previous cases to understand what counts as False Personation. They found that in this case, there wasn’t enough proof to show he impersonated someone who could be harmed by his actions. While the evidence seemed to show he used a fake name to escape responsibility for his actions, the instructions given to the jury were incomplete. Because of this, Daughrity's conviction for False Personation was reversed, which means he shouldn’t have been found guilty of that charge based on how the jury was instructed. However, they kept his convictions for robbery since they were clear and backed by enough evidence. In conclusion, while Daughrity's robbery convictions stayed, he won on the False Personation count. The judges made sure that the right procedures were followed, highlighting how important it is for juries to have complete and clear instructions when they are deciding on guilt.

M 2001-0393

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 20, 2002
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2001-0393, Albino Rosendo Soto appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reduced the victim's compensation assessment from $25.00 to $20.00. One judge dissented.

F 2000-1652

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 14, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1652, Shaun Scott Sprowls appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance but reversed and dismissed the count for Manufacturing a Precursor Substance. One judge dissented. The case began when authorities found evidence suggesting Sprowls was making illegal drugs, which led to his trial. The jury found him guilty and recommended a long prison sentence along with fines. Sprowls argued that this evidence should not have been used because it was collected without a proper search warrant. He also claimed that he was unfairly punished multiple times for the same act, which violated his rights. After reviewing the case, the court agreed that Sprowls was punished twice for the same crime, so they reversed the second conviction and removed the fine associated with it. However, they determined that the evidence for the first charge was enough to support the jury's decision and that his sentence was fair. Ultimately, the court affirmed part of the decision but corrected what they saw as an error in punishing him.

F-2005-392

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 21, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-638, Ray Lamont Hubbard appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the assessment of incarceration costs against him needed further review because the process used to determine those costs was not followed properly. The opinion noted that Hubbard's ability to pay was considered, but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to correctly calculate the incarceration costs. In OCCA case No. F-2000-194, Troy Don Cape also appealed the assessment of incarceration costs after pleading guilty to Driving While Intoxicated. The court similarly decided to vacate the amount of costs assessed against him because the required procedure for determining the costs was not adequately followed. Both cases were sent back for hearings to determine appropriate incarceration costs. One judge dissented on the decision to vacate and remand, believing that the assessments were already supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial courts had acted within their discretion.

RE 2001-0351

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 25, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2001-0351, the appellant appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of the appellant, agreeing that the trial court made a mistake in ordering sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. One judge dissented.

RE-2000-1209

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 7, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1209, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including kidnapping and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to several serious charges in 1992, including kidnapping and rape, and received suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't serve time in prison as long as he followed certain rules. Later, a protective order was issued against him due to concerns from another person. Over the years, he faced more legal issues, including a new conviction in 1997. In 2000, the state asked the court to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he violated the protective order. After a hearing, the court revoked all his suspended sentences. The appellant disagreed with this decision and pointed out four main problems with how his case was handled. He argued that his new sentence was too long, that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he broke the protective order, that the revocation was unfair, and that he didn’t properly receive notice about the charges. The court reviewed his claims and found that there was enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentences and that the trial court made a reasonable decision. However, the court also agreed with the appellant that his sentence for one charge was incorrectly stated as nine years when it should have been seven years. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of his suspended sentences but changed his sentence for the kidnapping charge to the correct length.

F-2001-49

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 7, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-49, John Henry Throckmorton appealed his conviction for manufacturing and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession. One judge dissented. Throckmorton was found guilty by a jury for two counts related to methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 20 years for manufacturing and 10 years for possession. However, Throckmorton argued that being convicted of both offenses was unfair because the laws say a person cannot be punished twice for the same action. The court agreed with him about the possession charge, stating that since the evidence for both charges was the same, it was wrong to convict him for both. As a result, they dismissed the possession conviction while keeping the manufacturing conviction.

RE-2000-1429

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1429, Walker John Myers appealed his conviction for attempting to elude a police officer and resisting an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered that the district court clarify the order. One judge dissented. Myers had originally received a sentence of one year in jail for each of the charges, with some time suspended. After an investigation, the court found he had violated the terms of his probation. The appeal focused on whether there was enough evidence for this decision, and on the clarity of the revocation order. The court found that Myers had previously admitted to violating his probation, which meant that the revocation was supported by evidence. However, it also noted that the order was unclear about how much of his remaining sentence was actually being revoked, leading to the requirement for a clearer explanation from the district court.

RE 2000-1512

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 30, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1512, the appellant appealed her conviction for Omission to Provide for a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, in 1998, pled guilty to not providing for a minor. Instead of going to jail, she was given a chance to prove herself with what is called a deferred sentence. This means that if she followed the rules for a certain period, she wouldn’t have to serve time. However, in July 1999, the state decided to put her on a faster track to face her punishment due to some issues that had come up. In February 2000, the court decided to give her a suspended sentence of four years. This meant she wouldn’t go to jail but would have to follow certain rules. In September 2000, the state complained that she wasn’t following those rules, so they filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentence. The court held a hearing about this in November 2000 and decided to take away her suspended sentence entirely. The appellant then appealed this decision, meaning she wanted a higher court to look at whether the lower court made mistakes. She argued three main points in her appeal: 1. She claimed that the court made a big mistake by revoking her sentence with a lawyer who had conflicts of interest. This was important because having a lawyer who could represent her well was her right. 2. She said that the evidence used to take away her sentence was not good enough. In her view, the state did not prove that she had truly broken the rules. 3. She also believed that the revocation of her sentence was too harsh, especially because of the lack of strong evidence against her. During the hearing, it became clear that the lawyer who represented her in both her first plea and during the revocation hearing had ties to the state. This was considered a conflict of interest, which the court emphasized is not acceptable. In the end, the court found that the appellant was right about the conflict of interest and that this issue was serious enough to reverse the decision made by the lower court. The case was sent back for further proceedings where these problems with her representation could be addressed.

J 2001-616

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 24, 2001
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2001-616, J.J.A. appealed his conviction for three counts of Burglary of an Automobile. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify it to reflect only two counts of Burglary of an Automobile. One member of the court dissented. The case began when a petition was filed against J.J.A. claiming he was a delinquent child due to the alleged burglaries. An adjudication hearing was held where the evidence was presented. J.J.A. argued that his rights were violated because statements made by a co-defendant who did not testify against him were used, and this went against his right to confront witnesses as established in a past case. After reviewing the details, the court found that although the trial court did not consider any statements that directly implicated J.J.A., two other codefendants did testify against him regarding two of the burglaries. As a result, the court decided to modify the adjudication to show that he committed only two counts instead of three. Overall, the decision confirmed the conviction but adjusted the count to ensure it aligned with the evidence presented.

RE 2000-1257

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 16, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1257, the appellant appealed her conviction for furnishing beer to a person under twenty-one years of age. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her suspended sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty and was sentenced to one year, which was suspended, meaning she would not have to serve time right away as long as she followed certain rules. However, later, the state said she had broken those rules and asked the court to revoke her suspended sentence. After a hearing, the judge decided she had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail with a part of that sentence suspended. The appellant appealed this decision, saying the court did not have the right to change her original sentence and that there wasn't enough proof of her violation. She also argued that she didn't receive proper notice about the reasons for her revocation, which is important for due process. The court agreed with her on the fact that the state did not provide enough evidence to support the revocation of her sentence. Due to this, the court decided to reverse the previous decision and instructed the lower court to dismiss the revocation order.

F-2000-1304

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1304, Michael Renee Powell appealed her conviction for manufacturing controlled dangerous substances (CDS), unlawful possession of methamphetamine, maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss the conviction for manufacturing CDS due to insufficient evidence. It noted that the conviction for maintaining a place for keeping and selling drugs would be modified to a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The court affirmed the convictions for the other counts. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the manufacturing charge, believing there was enough evidence to uphold that conviction.

F 2000-1241

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1241, McCandless appealed her conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that two of her three convictions were unfair and should not stand because they violated laws against being punished twice for the same action. McCandless claimed that finding different types of drugs in her home should only count as one offense. The court agreed with her on that point and reversed two of the convictions. However, the court found sufficient evidence to keep the other two convictions. One member of the court disagreed with this decision.

F-2000-880

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-880, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the appellant's sentence from ten years to seven years imprisonment. One judge dissented, stating that the error did not amount to plain error and that he would not modify the sentence.

C-2001-225

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 6, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2001-225, the petitioner appealed his conviction for a crime. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for a new hearing on the petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This means that the court found that the petitioner should have another chance to argue that his previous attorney did not help him as well as he should have. One judge dissented, meaning that they disagreed with the majority decision of the court.

F-2000-1138

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1138, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involved David Land Ashlock, who was found guilty of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon after a jury trial in Creek County. The jury sentenced him to forty years in prison and a fine of ten thousand dollars. Mr. Ashlock raised three issues on appeal about his trial. First, he argued that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing a defense instruction about defending another person. Second, he claimed that he was denied a fair trial because the jury convicted him of a crime that was not in the original charges against him. Finally, he said the prosecutor made an error by trying to explain the term reasonable doubt during the trial. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with Mr. Ashlock on the second point. They found that he was wrongfully convicted of a crime that was not explicitly charged against him. The original charges were about first-degree manslaughter, but during the trial, the jury was instructed on Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon without Mr. Ashlock’s consent. The court said that when a defendant objects to a lesser crime being included in the instructions, they should have the right to decide to stick with the main charge only. Mr. Ashlock’s lawyer had clearly objected, and the trial court should have respected his choice not to include the lesser charge of Assault and Battery. Because of this error, the court decided that Mr. Ashlock did not receive a fair trial. They concluded that the trial court had made a mistake, which warranted reversing his conviction. As a result, the court instructed to dismiss the case entirely.

F-2000-1531

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 30, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1531, Thomas Paul Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the drug possession charge to ten years. One judge dissented. Richardson was tried by a jury, found guilty of both crimes, and received a life sentence for manslaughter, twenty years for drug possession, and a ten-day jail term for speeding. The sentences were to be served one after the other. He raised several arguments about his trial and sentencing, including claims that his rights were violated and that he was given an unfair sentence. The court reviewed his claims and agreed that he was incorrectly sentenced for the drug possession charge, as the maximum penalty should have been ten years, not twenty. However, the court found no significant problems with other aspects of the trial, including the admission of certain testimonies and the conduct of the prosecutor. They believed the errors did not change the outcome or harm Richardson's chances for a fair trial. Overall, the court decided to lessen Richardson’s drug sentence while keeping the other convictions intact.

F-2000-484

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 23, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-484, Sam Henry Watkins appealed his conviction for Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Watkins was tried in a court without a jury and found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine. He was given a 20-year prison sentence. Watkins claimed that there were several mistakes made during his trial that should change the decision. He argued that: 1. He did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial. 2. The police illegally took evidence from him and questioned him. 3. Inappropriate evidence was used against him, which made his trial unfair. 4. He did not have good help from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at all these points and the entire situation. They concluded that Watkins did not show that he willingly gave up his right to a jury trial, which was important. The court noted that there was no proof that he understood what giving up that right meant. Therefore, this was a mistake. As for the evidence collected from Watkins, the court decided that it did not need to change the decision. The court found no error in the way the police handled the evidence during his detention. In the end, the court reversed Watkins's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. This meant that he would get another chance to defend himself against the charges.

RE 2000-1170

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 10, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-1170, the appellant appealed his conviction for revocation of suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence in one case and to reverse and dismiss the revocation in another case. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had previously pleaded guilty to two crimes and received suspended sentences, which means he would not have to serve time in prison if he followed the law and met certain conditions. However, the State (the lawyers representing the government) wanted to revoke these sentences, claiming the appellant did not follow the rules. At a hearing, the judge revoked the appellant’s suspended sentences. Later, the appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the State was too late to revoke one of his suspended sentences because the time to do so had expired. The State agreed with the appellant that they did not have the right to revoke the sentence for one of the cases. After considering the arguments, the court decided to keep the revocation for one case but to reverse the revocation for the other case, meaning the appellant would not have to serve time for the second case. The court also canceled a scheduled oral argument, stating it was not needed.

F-2000-617

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 2, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-617, Bernard Eugene Laster, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order of acceleration of Laster's sentences for the first two offenses but vacated the judgment for the third offense related to a tax stamp. There was no dissent.

F-2000-796

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-796, Ronald Phipps appealed his conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine (as a subsequent offense), possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the $1,000 fine for the possession of marijuana but affirmed all other convictions and sentences. One judge dissented on the issue of the fine.

F-2000-335

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-335, Alfred Lee Horn appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, and Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be modified to twenty years each.

F-2000-671

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 7, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-671, Robert F. Barnes appealed his conviction for Maiming and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Maiming but reversed the conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, instructing the lower court to dismiss that charge. One justice dissented. The case began when Barnes was accused of injuring someone during a single event. The jury found him guilty of Maiming but decided on a lesser charge for the second count. Barnes received a punishment, which included jail time and fines, along with an order for restitution to the victim. When Barnes appealed, he raised several arguments. He claimed that he should not have been punished for both charges since they came from the same event. The court agreed, stating that it was against the law to punish someone multiple times for one crime, so they reversed the second charge. Barnes also argued that the jury should have been given instructions on lesser charges during the trial, but the court found that the evidence did not support this. Thus, the judge's decision was not seen as a mistake. Additionally, Barnes said that there was misconduct during the trial, but the court did not find this to be serious enough to change the original decision. Lastly, the court noted that there was not enough information in the records about the restitution order, so they couldn't decide if it should be adjusted. In summary, the court confirmed the guilt of Barnes for Maiming (Count I) but decided that he should not be punished for the second charge (Count II), which was reversed.

F-2000-386

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 7, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-386, Rodney Eugene Cheadle appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and several other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction from First Degree Murder to Solicitation for Murder in the First Degree and changed his sentence from life without parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Rodney Eugene Cheadle was charged with many serious crimes, including selling drugs and murder. The case started when a woman named Donna Phillips was working with the police while she was arrested. She bought drugs from Cheadle, and police later got a search warrant for his house. When they searched it, they found drugs and guns. Cheadle was in jail when he told other inmates that he wanted to prevent Phillips from testifying against him. He even tried to get someone to kill her. Eventually, another inmate, Vance Foust, did kill Phillips. After the murder, a jail inmate told the police about Cheadle's plans. During the trial, the jury found Cheadle guilty on multiple counts, and he received heavy sentences. However, Cheadle appealed, claiming there wasn't enough evidence for some of the charges against him, especially for First Degree Murder. The court agreed with him, stating that while he did solicit someone to kill Phillips, the evidence did not show that it was in furtherance of his drug activities as required by law. Ultimately, the court agreed to change his First Degree Murder conviction to a lesser charge of Solicitation for Murder and reduced his sentence. It also reversed some of his other convictions due to double jeopardy issues. Therefore, while he was found guilty of many crimes, the court decided to modify his most serious conviction and sentence.

RE-2001-318

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-318, the appellant appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but found that he should be allowed to earn good-time credits. One judge dissented regarding the way the case was handled concerning incarceration costs. The case started when the appellant entered a plea and had his sentence deferred for three years. Later, his sentence was accelerated, and he was sentenced to seven years with two years suspended. After a while, the State requested to revoke his sentence, which led to a court hearing. The judge revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the appellant to serve 120 days in jail without earning good-time credits and to pay for his incarceration. During the appeal, the appellant argued two main points. He claimed that the court did not have the authority to deny him the ability to earn good-time credits and that it violated his rights by not reviewing the actual costs of his incarceration. The appellate court agreed that the lower court had exceeded its authority by not allowing the appellant to earn credits and ruled that the case needed further review regarding the incarceration costs. In summary, the appellate court confirmed the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but changed the decision about good-time credits and required a new review of incarceration costs to ensure fairness.