Statutory interpretation

F-2005-620

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-620, Ryan Anthony Van Winkle appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and forcible oral sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon but affirmed the conviction for forcible oral sodomy. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the assault conviction. The case began when Van Winkle was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious crimes. The jury decided that he should spend five years in prison for the assault and eight years for the sodomy, with these sentences to be served one after the other. During the appeal, several issues were raised. One major question was whether Van Winkle could be punished for both crimes because they were part of the same event. Van Winkle argued that the assault was the same act that made the sodomy forcible, which means he shouldn’t be punished for both under the law. The court looked closely at the details of the case. It found that Van Winkle had threatened the victim with a knife and made her agree to the sodomy because she feared for her safety. They decided that the assault with the knife was not a separate crime from the sodomy since they were tied closely together in this incident. Because of this, the court reversed the conviction for the assault, ordering that charge to be dismissed. While addressing the other arguments made by Van Winkle in his appeal, such as claims about not having a fair trial, the court decided these didn’t require changes since they were mainly related to the assault conviction. In summary, the court kept the conviction for forcible oral sodomy but did not allow the assault charge to stand due to how closely related the two acts were. One judge disagreed with the decision to reverse the assault conviction, believing that both crimes were deserving of punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2005-620

C-2005-211

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-211, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography and producing child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition for writ of certiorari and affirm the judgment while modifying the sentences. One judge dissented. Chad Justin Berntson entered guilty pleas to two serious charges related to child pornography in December 2004. In February 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in prison for each charge, with the sentences set to be served at the same time. He later asked to change his pleas, but the court said no. Berntson argued there were misunderstandings with the plea deal and claimed that one of the charges was not applied correctly, which made his plea involuntary. He also felt that the ten-year sentences were too harsh. After looking closely at his claims and the documents related to his case, the court decided that he did not have a misunderstanding about his plea. They noted that Berntson knew what to expect as they both agreed on a sentence of ten years. However, the court found that he was charged incorrectly with one of the counts, meaning he should have faced a lesser maximum sentence according to the different law that applied. Because of that, they changed the judgment and sentence for that count to five years instead. In the end, the court denied Berntson's request to change his plea, but they adjusted his sentence. They set both counts to five years in prison instead of the original ten years. The two sentences would still be served at the same time. One judge disagreed with how the court modified the sentences, believing that if Berntson entered a valid plea and got the sentence he expected, it should not be changed. This judge thought the court was wrong to alter the charges and punishments after the fact.

Continue ReadingC-2005-211

M 2004-0742

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2004-0742, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants and failure to wear a seat belt. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the decision and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case involved an appellant who was stopped by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt. The officer did not see the appellant driving erratically. However, the officer noticed that the appellant smelled like beer and had bloodshot eyes. The appellant told the officer he had consumed three or more beers, but the officer did not ask how long ago he had been drinking. During the trial, it became clear that the judge did not properly define what under the influence meant according to the law. The judge misunderstood that for someone to be considered under the influence, their ability to drive must be affected. This misunderstanding is very important because it means the trial didn't follow legal rules which are necessary for a fair judgment. Because of the mistake in understanding the law, the court decided that the evidence wasn't enough to support the appellant's conviction for driving under the influence. As a result, they overturned the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case. This means that the appellant's conviction is no longer valid, and there will be no punishment against him for the charges.

Continue ReadingM 2004-0742

F-2003-991

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-991, James Preston Ray, Sr., appealed his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided that while Ray's conviction and life imprisonment sentence were affirmed, the $50,000 fine imposed was vacated. One judge dissented regarding the vacation of the fine. The case was about Ray being found guilty of making methamphetamine after a trial where the jury heard evidence about his prior felony convictions. Ray argued that he did not get a fair trial due to several problems with how the trial was handled. He listed eight points of error. One major point was that he believed the jury was incorrectly told about the punishments they could give him. He also argued that the court should not have let evidence of his previous convictions be shown to the jury and that this influenced their decision unfairly. Ray claimed that the evidence of his guilt was not strong enough, and he thought the fine he was given was too high. He also said that all the mistakes made together took away his chance for a fair trial. The court reviewed these claims. They specifically looked at his concerns about the instructions the jury received regarding punishment. They noted that Ray was charged under a law that set his punishment between seven years and life in prison. Because Ray had prior convictions, he could be sentenced to a longer term. The law had been changed in 2002, meaning that the state could ask for both a longer imprisonment and additional fines for drug offenses. However, the state did not ask for the jury to be instructed about the fine, which led to the decision to vacate it. Ray also questioned whether the state could present the second page of the Information that listed his prior offenses, but the court ruled that he had agreed to those charges beforehand and did not raise any objections at the right times during the process. In the end, the court found that the evidence against Ray was sufficient for the conviction, and even though there were some mistakes, they did not change the trial's outcome. Therefore, his conviction and life sentence were upheld, but the fine was removed because it was not properly included in his penalty based on the law at the time. One judge, however, believed that the fine should not have been removed, stating that the changes made by the legislature allowed for both a longer sentence and a fine.

Continue ReadingF-2003-991

F-2002-899

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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.

Continue ReadingF-2002-899

F-2001-55

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-55, Lawrence Ray Washington appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and unlawful possession of money within a penal institute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of money and instructed to dismiss that count. One judge dissented. Washington was charged with three counts: possession of marijuana and money while in prison, and assaulting a correction officer. He was found not guilty of assault but guilty on the other two counts. He received a twenty-year sentence for each count, which would be served at the same time. Washington argued that being punished for both possessions was unfair because they were closely related. The court examined the details and decided that having both items at the same time was part of one action, rather than two separate actions. As a result, they thought punishing him for both possessions was against the law. Therefore, they took away the conviction for possession of money but kept the conviction for possession of marijuana. The dissenting judges believed Washington should have been punished for both counts because the law allows for separate punishments for different kinds of contraband items, even if they are found together.

Continue ReadingF-2001-55