Statutory Limit

F-2009-47

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-47, Kenneth Simmons appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. Mark Kenneth Simmons was found guilty of Manslaughter after his trial for Murder in the First Degree. The jury gave him a fifteen-year prison sentence. He appealed, saying the trial court made an error by not informing the jury that he had to serve at least 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The law in Oklahoma states that people convicted of specific crimes, like First Degree Murder or Manslaughter in the First Degree, must serve at least 85% of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. In a previous case, the court decided that jurors should know about these rules when they are deciding on a sentence. During the trial, when the jury asked if they needed to consider the 85% rule, the court told them to continue deliberating without giving any additional information. This was seen as a mistake. The State argued that this mistake did not affect the outcome significantly, but the court disagreed and said it was clear this lack of instruction was a big error. Because of this error, the court couldn’t be confident that the jury fully understood the implications of the sentence they handed down. The court decided that a new sentence should be determined, either by a properly instructed jury or by the District Court if the jury was waived by Simmons. The court affirmed the judgment but vacated the sentence, meaning they believed he should be tried again for sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2009-47

F-2006-905

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-905, Curtis Dale Gibson appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of Two Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of conviction but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. Gibson was tried by a jury in Jackson County and found guilty of raping a victim. The jury sentenced him to thirty years in prison. Gibson raised several issues in his appeal, including whether he received a fair trial, due to certain evidence being allowed and comments made by the prosecutor. He also argued that he should have received an instruction about parole eligibility and that his prior suspended sentence for another crime should not have been discussed during the trial. The court looked at each point raised by Gibson. It found that the statements from the victim's sister, which claimed she had also been a victim of Gibson, were not hearsay and were admitted correctly. The prosecutor's comments during the trial were not seen as causing enough harm to reverse the decision. However, the court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule regarding when Gibson could be eligible for parole, which was considered a mistake. As a result, the court affirmed Gibson's guilty verdict but changed his sentence, ordering that he be resentenced on account of this issue. The judges involved reached various conclusions, with one judge expressing disagreement with the decision to remand for resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2006-905

F-2001-934

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-934, Guy Franklin Randell appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for further proceedings regarding certain fees. One judge dissented. Randell was found guilty in a bench trial, meaning a judge, not a jury, decided his case. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years of that suspended, which means he won’t have to serve those five years if he meets certain conditions. He also had to pay a fine and other costs related to his court case. Randell raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that the testimony of the victim was not reliable and needed more support to be believed. The court looked at the evidence and decided that while there were some inconsistencies in the victim's statements, they were still enough to uphold the conviction. He also challenged the costs that were added to his sentence, particularly the fees for his time in jail. The court concluded that even though the prosecution had requested these fees, there was not enough evidence to support how they were calculated. Therefore, the court decided to remove those specific fees and send the case back for a hearing to figure out the correct costs. In summary, the court upheld Randell’s conviction but disagreed with some financial aspects of his sentencing, which will be reassessed in the lower court.

Continue ReadingF-2001-934