State of Oklahoma Archives - Page 23 of 23

J-2001-80

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 14, 2001
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2001-80, B. D. S. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court’s order denying his motion for certification as a youthful offender and remand the case for certification. One judge dissented. The case began when B. D. S. was charged as an adult with a serious crime. He wanted to be recognized as a youthful offender instead of being treated like an adult in the legal system. The court had to decide whether he should be classified as a youthful offender, which could mean a different kind of punishment and possible help for rehabilitation. B. D. S. argued that the trial court made mistakes. He said the court did not follow the rules about notifying his family of his rights regarding the case, and he claimed his lawyer did not do enough to defend him by speaking up about this issue. After listening to the arguments, the court found that the trial court did not provide proper notice to B. D. S.’s parents or guardian. This lack of communication meant that he might not have received a fair chance in court. The judges agreed that this was important and decided that B. D. S. should be given another chance to be classified as a youthful offender. The dissenting judge felt differently. This judge believed that the trial court's decision not to classify B. D. S. as a youthful offender was the right choice. This judge thought that the evidence showed B. D. S. had committed a serious crime in a cold and calculated way, and that he had a history of violent behavior, which warranted treating him as an adult. The dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of public safety and questioned whether B. D. S. could be rehabilitated. In summary, the court’s majority agreed that B. D. S. should be treated as a youthful offender for a fresh evaluation, while the dissenting judge maintained that the evidence showed he should remain classified as an adult.

F-2000-367

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

In OCCA case No. F-2000-367, Kenneth Matthew Crase appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance - Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One member of the court dissented. Crase was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison and fined $50,000. He argued several points about why he should not be convicted. He claimed there was not enough evidence to prove he helped make methamphetamine. He also said there wasn't enough support for the testimony from an accomplice, that evidence of other crimes was unfair during his trial, and that the prosecutors behaved badly, making it hard for him to get a fair trial. After looking closely at all the evidence and records from the trial, the court agreed with Crase. They found that just being present and knowing that someone was making methamphetamine did not mean he was guilty of making it or helping to make it. The court concluded that there was not enough proof to convict him, so they reversed the lower court's decision and ordered the case to be dismissed.

F-1999-1615

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1615, Jackie Lavern Nuckols appealed his conviction for Manufacturing or Attempting to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Nuckols was found guilty by a jury, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison along with a $100,000 fine. He appealed his conviction, raising several issues. First, he argued that old convictions were unfairly used against him, which should not have been allowed. The court agreed that this was not right since the old convictions could have influenced the jury too much. However, they also said that this alone didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Second, there was a problem with evidence about another crime that was brought up during the trial. The court found that this evidence was not appropriate but decided that it didn't have a big impact on the jury’s decision. Third, Nuckols thought that his fine was too high and should be changed, but the court did not agree with this point. Fourth, he claimed that he didn't have enough help from his lawyer when he needed it. The court said that even though his lawyer might not have done everything perfectly, it didn’t hurt Nuckols' chance for a fair trial. His lawyer had a chance to represent him in other important parts of the trial. Lastly, Nuckols felt that when all of these issues were looked at together, they took away his right to a fair trial. The court acknowledged that some mistakes were made, especially about the old convictions and the mention of another crime, and they concluded that these combined errors were serious enough to justify a new trial. All in all, the court decided to reverse Nuckols’ conviction and said he should have a new trial to properly address these issues.

RE 2000-0688

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0688, the individual appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision by the lower court and send the case back for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The person had a suspended sentence because he had pleaded to a crime in 1997. His sentence meant that he would not go to jail right away, but he had to follow certain rules. If he broke those rules, the court could revoke his suspended sentence and send him to jail. In April 2000, the state filed to revoke his suspended sentence. The hearing to decide this was supposed to happen soon, but due to scheduling issues, the hearing was delayed. The court did not hold the hearing within the required 20 days after the plea was entered. Because of this delay, the court found that they lost the authority to revoke the sentence. The appellate court reviewed the case and made the decision to reverse the lower court's ruling. They pointed out that the law clearly states the timeline for revocation hearings and that this timeline was not followed in this case. Thus, they sent the matter back to the lower court for further action.

F 2000-152

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-152, the appellant, Sidney Leon Crittenden, appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the first count but reversed and remanded the second count with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Crittenden was charged with serious offenses, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. He was found guilty on two counts of Lewd Molestation and sentenced to 45 years in prison for each count, along with a fine. On appeal, Crittenden raised several arguments. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as changing the charges and allowing evidence of other crimes, which he felt unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that being convicted of two offenses from the same incident was against the rules, and he felt the sentences he received were too harsh. After looking carefully at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Crittenden on one issue—being charged for two separate offenses from one event was not acceptable. They affirmed the first conviction but ordered that the second one be dismissed as there was not enough evidence to support it as a separate act. The court noted that while some evidence suggested there might have been different incidents, it was not strong enough to meet the required level of proof. They concluded that the trial was mostly fair, and the sentences for the first count seemed appropriate. Overall, the decision respected that some of the rules regarding the number of convictions related to a single act were not followed and adjusted the outcome accordingly.

F 2000-599

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 13, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-599, Charles Earl Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for Omitting to Provide for Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and modify the restitution amount. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Smith, Jr. was found guilty in a court for not taking care of his child. After the trial, he was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay a fine and restitution. The restitution amount was initially set at $10,247.00, but Smith argued this was unfair. The court looked at the case closely and found that the restitution amount should actually be changed to $10,035.25 after considering some payments that Smith had already made. They agreed that the judge had the right to ask for restitution, but the amount needed to be fixed. In the end, the court agreed with Smith about changing the restitution amount but kept the rest of the conviction the same.

F-1999-1654

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-99-1654, Damean Ortego Tillis appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and Feloniously Carrying a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the first conviction to Unlawful Possession of Marijuana and reduce the sentence to one year of imprisonment, which would be served consecutively with the sentence for the firearm charge. One judge dissented. Tillis was tried by jury in Caddo County and found guilty of both charges. The jury recommended a ten-year sentence for the marijuana charge and a twenty-year sentence for the firearm charge. The judge agreed to these sentences and ordered them to be served back-to-back. Tillis raised several points in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes, including admitting evidence of his previous conviction and not allowing a separate trial for the firearm charge. He claimed this hurt his chances for a fair trial. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to prove he intended to distribute marijuana and that his sentence was too harsh. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that the trial court made a mistake by admitting evidence of Tillis's past conviction during the first part of the trial. This was against the rules because the laws say only certain previous convictions should be shared at certain stages of the trial. However, the court decided that, even with this mistake, the evidence against Tillis for possessing marijuana was strong enough to still uphold his conviction, but it should be changed to a less serious charge. For the second point, the court found no error in not telling the jury about a lack of knowledge defense regarding the firearm. They said there was no evidence to support that claim. On the third point, they agreed there wasn't enough evidence to show he wanted to distribute marijuana, so they modified that conviction to simple possession, which is less serious. Lastly, they said the sentences were not extreme, so the decision on the firearm charge stayed unchanged. In summary, Tillis's conviction for marijuana possession was lessened, and his sentence was adjusted, but the firearm conviction was maintained as originally sentenced.

RE-2000-1010

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 28, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1010, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, failure to affix a tax stamp, unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful use of a police radio, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences but also ordered that the sentences for two specific charges be modified to ensure they were within the legal limits set by statute. One judge dissented.

F 2001-434

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 21, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-434, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming others. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of a particular charge. William Forrest Mondier was found guilty of attempting to make drugs, possessing drugs, and allowing a place for drug users. The court looked at his case and found mistakes in how the jury was instructed regarding one of the charges. Because the jury didn't have the right information, they couldn't properly decide if Mondier had acted knowingly or intentionally when maintaining a place used for drugs. Therefore, that conviction was reversed. The court also found that Mondier's possession of marijuana and methamphetamine was too similar to keep both convictions, so they reversed one of them. However, his other convictions, including drug manufacturing and possession of drug paraphernalia, remained in place, as there was enough evidence against him for those charges. There were also several arguments raised by the appellant about the fairness of his trial and the enforcement of laws regarding the charges, but the court denied those claims. The final decision was to reverse and dismiss the charge of maintaining a place for drug users and the marijuana charge. The convictions for attempting to manufacture drugs and possessing paraphernalia were affirmed. One judge disagreed with the dismissal and wanted a new trial instead.

C-2000-1344

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 14, 2001
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-00-1344, Betts appealed his conviction for multiple offenses including Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Assault on a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition for relief regarding some of the convictions due to a lack of adequate factual support for those charges. One judge dissented. Betts had pleaded guilty to several charges in a lower court, but later claimed he did not understand all the details of the offenses or the punishments he could receive. He filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied by the district court. The case was then brought to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The court looked at the reasons Betts provided for wanting to withdraw his plea. One of the main issues was that there was not enough factual evidence to support certain charges against him. For instance, when Betts admitted some wrongdoing, he did not talk about other specific charges like the drug possession or tampering with a vehicle. The court found that because of this, Betts did not really enter his plea to those counts in a fair way. While the court affirmed one of his convictions related to Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, they reversed other convictions regarding Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and related charges. The court also mentioned that there were problems with how restitution was handled, which means determining if and how much money Betts should pay for what he did. Overall, the court sent the case back to the district court to ensure that the restitution issues were corrected and to check if the earlier order of restitution was appropriate for the right case. The court set a timeframe for the district court to work on these issues. In summary, the court found that Betts was not properly informed or supported for several of the charges against him, leading them to reverse some of his convictions while affirming one, and they ordered further hearings on the restitution matter.

RE 2000-0392

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

In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0392, the accused appealed his conviction for lewd molestation and rape by force and fear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the accused's suspended sentences, but modified the sentences for lewd molestation from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented from the decision regarding the modification of the sentence.

F 2000-213

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

In OCCA case No. F 2000-213, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Carrying a Controlled Dangerous Substance into Jail. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One member of the court dissented. The case involved Heather Davenport, who was accused of bringing illegal substances into a jail. During her trial, the jury found her guilty and suggested a fine and imprisonment. Davenport argued that the jury's decision was unfair because evidence about her husband’s unrelated past crimes was brought into the trial. This evidence was shown to suggest that she knew what she was doing was wrong, which she believed was not relevant to her case. The court agreed with her and noted that the evidence against her did not clearly show that she knew she was breaking the law when she brought the items to the jail. The use of information about her husband’s actions was too unfair and prejudiced her chance for a fair trial. Therefore, the court decided that the conviction should not stand, stating that the evidence presented could have caused a significant mistake in the trial's outcome. The final opinion indicated that the trial court's decision was reversed, and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges against Davenport.

RE-2000-841

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-841, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided that the appellant's revoked sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.

RE-2000-251

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 2, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-251, Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation of Appellant's sentence to eight years rather than upholding the full revocation. Three judges dissented on the modification. Initially, the Appellant was given a deferred sentence and placed on probation with the requirement of attending sexual abuse counseling. After some time, his probation was revoked due to not following these rules. The court felt there was enough evidence to show he violated his probation rules. However, they believed the full revocation of his sentence was too harsh and modified it to only eight years, while still requiring him to follow the same probation rules set previously.

F-2000-282

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-282, Sidney Wayne Clark appealed his conviction for Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer and Placing Bodily Fluids on a Government Employee. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Clark's sentence for Count I to one year in the County Jail and for Count II to one year imprisonment, with both sentences to run consecutively. One judge dissented.

F-2000-948

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. PR-99-1326, the Petitioners appealed their conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the mistrial declared by the judge was not justified and therefore double jeopardy bars the State from retrying the Petitioners. One judge dissented. The case began when the Petitioners were charged with serious offenses. The first trial ended in a mistrial, which the judge declared after issues arose during a witness's cross-examination. The attorneys raised concerns about whether the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that could help the defense. This evidence related to the witness's background and credibility. The judge felt that the defense attorney’s questions may have harmed the trial, which led him to call for a mistrial. However, after reviewing the trial's events, the court found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial. In other words, the situation did not require such an extreme remedy. The court felt that a warning could have been sufficient to address any perceived problems before resorting to declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the review concluded that the judge made errors in declaring the mistrial and, as a result, the defendants could not be tried again for these charges. The opinion emphasized that once a jury is discharged without sufficient reason, it can lead to violating the defendants' rights under the double jeopardy clause, which prevents someone from being tried for the same crime twice.