Statutory Punishment

F-2018-114

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-114, Andrew Huff appealed his conviction for four counts of Child Neglect and one count of Child Sexual Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Andrew Huff was convicted of neglecting his children and sexually abusing a minor. He was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years for the neglect charges and thirty years for the sexual abuse, with all sentences running concurrently. He raised several arguments against his conviction, claiming his rights were violated through various means. First, Huff stated that his video-recorded statements to an investigator should not have been allowed in court because he didn't properly waive his right to counsel. The court found no error in admitting the statement, stating that Huff’s questioning did not clearly indicate he wanted a lawyer at that moment. Next, Huff argued that hearsay evidence was incorrectly allowed, which hurt his chance of a fair trial. However, the court found that any hearsay used was not harmful to the case since other clear evidence proved the charges. Huff also claimed improper admission of other crimes evidence during his police interview, but again, the court concluded there was enough evidence for a verdict regardless of those statements. Regarding jury instructions, Huff felt the jury did not receive proper guidance on the laws for child sexual abuse, which the court acknowledged but deemed harmless since overwhelming evidence supported the verdict. Huff’s claim of insufficient evidence was denied as the court found that evidence presented allowed for rational conclusions supporting the guilty verdicts on both child neglect and sexual abuse. He also brought up issues regarding prosecutorial misconduct during the trial. The court examined these claims and determined any alleged misconduct was not severe enough to warrant a reversal of the conviction. Huff argued that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the introduction of certain evidence and not properly advising him during the trial. The court disagreed, stating that the counsel's performance, while being scrutinized, did not affect the overall outcome of the trial as there was sufficient evidence against him. Lastly, Huff believed that his sentence was excessive, but the court noted that the punishment was within legal limits and that the nature of the crimes warranted the sentence imposed. The overall decision confirmed that there were no reversible errors during the trial, and the affirmance upheld Andrew Huff’s conviction and sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2018-114

F-2018-290

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-290, John Wesley Hart appealed his conviction for child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentences. One judge dissented. John Wesley Hart was found guilty by a jury on three counts of child sexual abuse that happened at different times. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, which means he will serve a total of sixty years. As part of the appeal, Hart argued that the jury did not receive proper instructions about what constitutes child sexual abuse, which he claimed violated his rights. Specifically, he believed the jury instructions on the definitions of lewd or indecent acts were confusing and could have led to non-unanimous verdicts. The court explained that the trial judge did instruct the jury correctly on the law and the acts that led to Hart's conviction. The judge pointed out that the acts Hart committed were clearly defined and separated by time, which meant they did not violate double jeopardy rights. The court also determined that it is not necessary for the jury to agree on every specific act as long as they are all considered part of the same crime of child sexual abuse. Hart also challenged the length of his sentence, claiming it was too harsh. However, the court noted that his sentences were justified based on the facts of the case and were within the limits of the law. The trial court had the discretion to make the sentences run one after another instead of at the same time, and the Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no mistake in this decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hart's conviction and the sentences given in the trial court.

Continue ReadingF-2018-290

C-2010-77

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-77, Markeese Kreashawmn Ward appealed his conviction for Trafficking CDS and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Markeese Kreashawmn Ward was in court for committing serious crimes. On December 19, 2007, he said he was guilty to two charges: Trafficking in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Because he was a young adult, the judge decided he could join a special program called the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. This program was supposed to give him a second chance, and his sentencing was scheduled for a year later, on December 19, 2008. When that day came, the judge decided that Markeese had not done well in the program, so he was punished with five months in jail. After his jail time, he was supposed to go into another program designed to help him. Later, on November 13, 2009, the judge sentenced him to 45 years in prison for Trafficking and 5 years for unauthorized vehicle use, with both sentences running at the same time. Markeese didn't like the sentences he received and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court held a hearing and decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. Markeese believed there were two main reasons why he should be allowed to change his plea: 1. He claimed that some conditions added by the judge to his plea agreement were unfair because he didn’t agree to them. He thought this broke the rules about how judges and other branches of government should work separately. 2. He argued that the judge didn’t sentence him within the year required by law, making the sentence illegal. As the court reviewed these claims, they decided that the judge had done everything by the rules. First, they found that the judge's notes did not change the original agreement Markeese had made when he pleaded guilty, and he could have refused to accept the new conditions if he wanted. Therefore, his plea was still valid. For the second point, the court noted that even though Markeese thought the judge’s actions were a delay in sentencing, they were not. Instead, the judge was just giving him another chance to succeed in the program. The court pointed out that the judge was following the law properly by looking at Markeese's progress and determining if he deserved to have his sentence delayed further. Eventually, the court realized that the judge’s actions had led to a misunderstanding. To account for it properly, the court determined that Markeese had already been treated as if he had been given a part of his sentence when he was sanctioned to jail time and sent to the aftercare program. However, since Markeese had also been sentenced again later, it was like giving him two different sentences for the same crime, which is not allowed. In summary, the court decided to keep the original decision to deny Markeese's request to withdraw his plea but corrected what would happen next. They asked that his official record reflect that the sentence imposed during the sanction in December 2008 was what he needed to serve, and they mentioned that he should be released from custody. The result was that Markeese's case was somewhat settled, and his future would look different than it may have before, with the court noting a mistake that needed fixing without adding more time to his punishment.

Continue ReadingC-2010-77

M-2005-375

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2005-375, the appellant appealed his conviction for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Failing to Register a Vehicle, and Failing to Carry Security Verification. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and Failing to Carry valid Security Verification and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Failing to Register a Vehicle was also reversed with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involves an appellant who was convicted after a jury trial in Love County. He was sentenced to a total of over two years in prison and ordered to pay restitution for damages. Appellant raised several issues on appeal, primarily arguing that the trial court made mistakes during the trial, including allowing improper questioning about a previously withdrawn guilty plea and imposing an illegal punishment. The trial started with the appellant being arrested for multiple offenses related to driving and vehicle registration. At first, he agreed to plead guilty but decided to withdraw that plea after getting legal help. During his trial, the prosecution wrongly questioned him about that guilty plea, which was acknowledged as an error by both sides. This error was seen as significant enough to potentially affect the jury's decision, therefore, the court believed a new trial was necessary. For the offense of Failing to Register a Vehicle, the court found that the punishment given was not within the law's limits. Furthermore, the state agreed that the appellant should not have been charged under Oklahoma law since the vehicle was bought out of state. Thus, the conviction for this offense was also overturned. In conclusion, the court acted to protect the fairness of the trial process by ordering new trials for some convictions and dismissing others. The decision addressed important legal standards and ensured that justice was served correctly.

Continue ReadingM-2005-375

F 2004-1002

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1002, Benny Paul McCartney appealed his conviction for attempted manufacturing of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for the first two counts but to reverse and dismiss the third count due to double jeopardy concerns. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the third count, arguing that the appellant violated two different laws and should be held accountable for both.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1002