In OCCA case No. J-2014-980, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the order adjudicating him as a delinquent child due to the lack of sufficient evidence that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a trial by jury. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0848, Andrell Jackson appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence for one of the cases but vacated the revocation for the other case and sent it back for further proceedings. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-656, Jason Kenneth Dimaggio, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including robbery and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one conviction but affirmed all others. One judge dissented. Jason Dimaggio was found guilty of several offenses that occurred during a violent crime spree in two Oklahoma counties. His crimes included robbery with a weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other charges. He received lengthy sentences, with some of them being consecutive, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, Dimaggio argued that he didn't get a fair trial for several reasons. He claimed that some evidence about other crimes should not have been allowed, and that he was denied the chance to confront witnesses due to hearsay evidence. His main points included: 1. Other-crimes evidence was presented improperly. 2. Hearsay evidence was used against him. 3. The trial court allowed irrelevant photographs of him to be shown to the jurors. 4. There was misconduct by the prosecutor. 5. The jury was incorrectly instructed about his flight after crimes. 6. The combined effect of errors denied him a fair trial. 7. The court should not have ordered his sentences to be served consecutively. 8. He was unfairly punished multiple times for the same conduct. 9. The evidence did not support some of his convictions. The court reviewed all these claims and found that the evidence about earlier crimes was acceptable as part of the overall story of the events. Although there were issues with some evidence, like the photographs, the judges felt the impact on the trial was not significant enough to change the outcome because there was strong evidence against Dimaggio from witnesses. Regarding the prosecutor’s comments during the trial, the court noted that errors weren’t severe enough to matter because they were not objected to at the time. They also agreed that the jury's instruction about flight wasn't appropriate, but again, it didn't affect the strong evidence of guilt. Dimaggio’s claims of double jeopardy (being punished twice for the same crime) regarding his convictions for assault and fleeing from a police officer were not supported. The court ruled that the crimes were separate and had different elements. However, the court did agree that he should not be convicted for possession of a controlled substance because it was part of the robbery and should not have been counted as a separate crime. Thus, that conviction was reversed. In conclusion, except for the reversed conviction, the court upheld Dimaggio's multiple sentences and affirmed the trial court’s decisions in all other respects.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0801, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Wendel Hughes for preventing a witness from giving testimony, use of a firearm while committing a felony, and false reports of crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that dismissed the charges of preventing a witness from testifying and use of a firearm while committing a felony. One judge dissented. Wendel Hughes was charged in Sequoyah County with three serious offenses. During the preliminary hearing, the magistrate determined that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges of preventing a witness from giving testimony or using a firearm during a felony. The State thought this decision was wrong and appealed the ruling. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to see if there is likely enough evidence to believe that a crime happened and that the accused person committed it. The court reviewed the case to check if the lower court made a mistake in its decision. They found that the evidence the State provided was not strong enough to show that Hughes committed the crimes. So, they decided not to change the ruling of the lower court. The court affirmed the dismissal of the two counts against Hughes, meaning they agreed with the previous decision. The judge who disagreed with the majority opinion thought that the evidence should have been enough to go to trial. He argued that the evidence suggested Hughes had intentions to stop the witness from providing testimony and that a jury should decide if he was guilty based on all the facts of the case. In summary, Hughes's charges were dismissed because the courts did not find enough evidence of his wrongdoing based on the information presented during the preliminary hearing.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-558, Torrez Ceasar appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (PCP) with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and modify it to Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (PCP) alone, with a sentence of imprisonment for twenty years. One judge dissented. The case began when Ceasar was tried by a jury and found guilty of possessing PCP with the intent to distribute it. The trial took place in the District Court of Oklahoma County, where the judge sentenced him to a long prison term of twenty-five years. Ceasar challenged his conviction on several points. First, Ceasar argued that the evidence did not prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He claimed the state failed to show that he actually possessed the PCP or that he intended to distribute it. The court examined whether a reasonable person could have found him guilty based on the evidence presented. They found enough evidence to support that he had thrown a bottle of PCP into a car, suggesting he had possession of it. However, the question of whether he intended to distribute it was more complex. The law stated that merely having a drug is not enough to show intent to distribute. The court compared Ceasar's situation with another case where the defendants had a large amount of marijuana but were not selling it. The court noted that without proof of other selling signs, such as packaging for sale or cash, it was not clear if Ceasar intended to distribute the drugs. The evidence related to Ceasar's intoxication seemed more consistent with personal use rather than distribution, leading to the decision to change his conviction to simple possession of PCP. Ceasar also raised concerns about the admission of evidence related to his alleged gang affiliation. The court concluded that while this type of evidence can be seen as unfairly prejudicial, in this case, it did not significantly impact the trial outcome. The reference to gang signs was deemed minor and not overly emphasized during the trial, so the decision to allow it was considered fair. Lastly, Ceasar argued that the trial judge erred by not allowing his jury to consider a lesser charge of public intoxication. However, the court determined that public intoxication was not a lesser included offense of drug possession with intent to distribute. The laws concerning these charges protected different public interests, so the judge was correct in denying this instruction to the jury. In summary, after reviewing all arguments and the evidence, the court found that Ceasar's original conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute was not supported by sufficient evidence of intent to distribute. Therefore, his conviction was changed to simply possessing the substance, and the sentence was adjusted to twenty years in prison. The dissenting opinion raised concerns about the majority interpretation of intent and evidence but ultimately, the revised conviction stood.
In OCCA case No. S 2011-0024, Joel Christion Aranda appealed his conviction for multiple charges including Use of a Vehicle in Discharge of a Weapon and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed several counts against Aranda. One judge dissented, believing there was enough evidence to proceed with some of the charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-525, Sparks appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug, and Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Counts 2 and 3 but reversed and remanded Count 1, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding Count 1. The case involved Nathan David Sparks, who was tried and found guilty in Osage County. The jury decided that he should spend ten years in prison for Second Degree Murder, along with a fine for delivering a controlled substance and a year in county jail for improperly handling a dead body. The trial judge followed the jury's recommendations. The appeal focused on several issues, including whether there was enough evidence to support a conviction for Second Degree Murder. During the trial, the prosecution argued that Sparks gave methamphetamine to a woman who later died from it, claiming they had a close relationship and that he knew about her health issues. Sparks argued that the evidence did not strongly support the idea that his actions were extremely dangerous. The court reviewed prior cases and determined that not every case of delivering drugs resulting in death is automatically Second Degree Murder. They explained that for a murder charge to stick, the actions must show a clear disregard for life. They found that in Sparks' case, while he knew the victim had health problems, there wasn't enough evidence to prove his actions were dangerously reckless enough to warrant a murder conviction. Each of Sparks' other issues was also reviewed. They found some testimony was not directly related to the case, but since the evidence for Counts 2 and 3 was strong, it did not change the outcome. They determined that there was no misconduct during the trial and that Sparks had adequate legal representation. In summary, the court upheld Sparks' convictions for the drug delivery and body removal but did not find strong enough evidence for the murder charge, leading to its dismissal. One judge disagreed, believing the evidence was sufficient to uphold the murder charge due to Sparks' knowledge of the victim's health issues.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery by strangulation and threatening to perform an act of violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the second count but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the first count. One judge dissented. James Duane Dorsey, Jr. entered a guilty plea for domestic assault and battery and no contest for threatening to perform an act of violence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended, and 90 days in county jail for the first count. For the second count, he received a suspended one-year jail sentence, to run at the same time as the first count. Dorsey later tried to withdraw his pleas, but the trial court did not allow it. In his appeal, Dorsey argued two main points. First, he claimed his plea for the first charge was not valid because the court did not show enough facts to justify the plea. Second, he said the sentence for the second count was too long and needed to be changed. The court looked carefully at the entire case record before making a decision. They found that for the first point, Dorsey did not mention the lack of facts during his earlier motions, which means it was not properly brought up in his appeal. The court determined that, under their rules, they could only check for serious mistakes, not just any errors. They confirmed that Dorsey's pleas were made knowingly and that the court had the right to accept them. Dorsey had admitted to the crime of strangulation during his hearing, and the state had evidence to support the charge of threatening violence. For the second point, the court agreed with Dorsey that his sentence for the second count was too long. They noted that the maximum sentence for that misdemeanor should be six months. Therefore, they adjusted the sentence down to six months, but still suspended it. Overall, the court accepted Dorsey’s pleas and affirmed his conviction for the first count. However, they changed his sentence for the second count to fit within legal limits. One judge disagreed with how the court reviewed the first point but agreed with the rest of the decision.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-1176, Don Wayne Townsend Jr. appealed his conviction for Omission to Provide for Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case. No one dissented. In this case, Townsend was initially charged with not providing for his child, which was a violation of the law. However, after the state presented its evidence, the trial judge decided that the evidence was not strong enough to continue the trial. The state then sought to appeal this decision, asking if the judge made a mistake in dismissing the case. The court looked carefully at the situation and found that the state's question was not really about the law, but rather about whether the evidence was enough to prove Townsend's guilt. The court explained that proving someone is guilty requires showing they willfully did not support their child for a long time. They also stated that it must be shown that the person had a legal obligation to pay child support. Ultimately, the court agreed with the trial judge's decision and found no error in dismissing the case against Townsend. This means that the matter was closed and he could not be tried again for this charge. The court's decision was recorded, and they indicated that the dismissal order would stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-538, Jerry Johnson appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Johnson did not competently, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial, which means that he deserves a new trial. However, the evidence presented in his bench trial was sufficient to support his conviction, so they remanded the case for a new trial. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-60, Valenta E. Thompson appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes including first-degree rape, sodomy, kidnapping, and witness intimidation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold some of the convictions while reversing others. One judge dissented. Valenta E. Thompson faced serious charges in the District Court of Muskogee County. He was found guilty by a jury of crimes that included rape and sodomy, among others. The jury recommended significant sentences, leading to Thompson receiving life imprisonment for some charges and lesser sentences for others. In his appeal, Thompson raised many issues. He argued that he did not receive a fair trial, citing that he was not properly informed of the elements of some charges. Specifically, he mentioned that the jury wasn't instructed about the components necessary to prove anal sodomy and witness intimidation. These mistakes were recognized as severe enough to warrant a reversal of those convictions. Thompson also claimed that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for rape, and he argued that incorrect jury instructions regarding his potential sentences impacted his case. In addition, he pointed out that the prosecutor had made improper comments during the trial about plea deals, and that his own lawyer did not provide adequate representation throughout the process. The court carefully reviewed all the arguments and the entire record of the case. They found that the lack of instruction for some charges was a significant error. This was particularly true for witness intimidation, where the jury did not understand what needed to be proven for a conviction. Because of this, those specific counts were reversed. However, regarding the charge of first-degree rape and other offenses, the court found enough evidence to support the convictions. The judges determined that despite the errors concerning instructions, Thompson's sentences for the remaining counts were appropriate and should be upheld. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgments and sentences for most of Thompson's convictions while reversing and remanding the convictions related to anal sodomy and witness intimidation for further proceedings. Some judges agreed with this decision, but one judge dissented, believing that the convictions should not have been reversed.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-061, Antwaun Deon Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder and Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified the sentence for first-degree murder from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment. The sentences for both charges were ordered to run consecutively, and the decision to revoke Lewis's suspended sentence was affirmed. One judge dissented concerning the introduction of a witness's testimony from a previous trial, arguing it violated Lewis's right to confront witnesses.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-061, Antwaun Deon Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder and Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence for first degree murder from life without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment but affirmed the judgment and sentence for robbery. One judge dissented regarding the issue of the introduction of certain testimony. The case began when Lewis and another person killed Orlando Prudom at a park in Tulsa, Oklahoma. They shot Prudom multiple times and took items from him. Lewis was found guilty by a jury and received a harsh sentence because of his previous criminal record. During the appeal, Lewis raised several issues. One concern was about the trial procedure used when the jury decided his sentence after learning of his past conviction. He argued that the jury should not have known about his prior conviction when deciding the murder sentence. The court agreed that the trial procedure was flawed, which affected the fairness of his sentencing, leading them to change his sentence. Lewis also argued that a witness's testimony from a previous trial was used improperly without giving him a chance to confront her. However, the court decided that this error did not significantly affect the outcome because there was a lot of strong evidence against him, such as his own admissions and other witnesses' accounts. Another point Lewis raised was about the introduction of photographs of the victim, which he described as gruesome. The court ruled that these photographs were relevant to the case and did not unfairly prejudice the jury against him. Lastly, Lewis claimed he had ineffective assistance from his lawyer during the trial. The court found that the arguments regarding the trial process were enough to provide relief, while other claims did not show that he suffered from any real prejudice during the trial. The final decision upheld the conviction for murder and robbery, modified the murder sentence, and confirmed the revocation of a previously suspended sentence for another crime. In conclusion, while some issues found in the trial were acknowledged, the court maintained that the evidence against Lewis was very strong.
In OCCA case No. F 2008-287, Matthew Thornbrough appealed his conviction for several counts, including possession of a firearm and operating a police radio. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for operating a police radio and ordered it to be dismissed, while affirming his convictions for the other charges. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2008-593, Alan Daniels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. On July 14, 2005, Daniels pled guilty to growing a small marijuana plant. The judge deferred sentencing for five years, making him serve ten days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. Later, the State found that he violated the terms of his plea deal, and on February 14, 2006, the judge sentenced him to life in prison. Over the next two years, Daniels tried to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal the decision. Daniels' plea was reviewed on June 12, 2008, but the district court upheld the plea and denied his request. Daniels then appealed to a higher court, asking to withdraw his plea and have a new trial, or to change his sentence. The issues raised included whether the evidence showed he violated probation, if his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was enough to prove that Daniels broke the rules set during his probation. The court also found that Daniels's guilty plea was made knowingly. However, the court believed that a life sentence for growing a small marijuana plant was too extreme. They decided to change his sentence to five years in prison instead.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-848, Marvis Evans appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after felony conviction, and pointing a firearm at another. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm but reversed and dismissed the conviction for pointing a firearm. One judge dissented. Marvis Evans was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for several serious crimes. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison for each crime, but some sentences would be served at the same time. Evans argued that he was punished unfairly because of double jeopardy, meaning he did not think he should be tried and punished for the same act in two different ways. He also claimed there wasn't enough proof to prove he committed the crimes. The court looked at Evans's arguments closely. They found that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, and the law does allow for those two separate charges. However, they agreed that Evans was punished too harshly for pointing a firearm, which they decided to dismiss because it was too similar to the robbery charge. In the end, the court confirmed that he was guilty of robbery and possession of a firearm, but not for pointing a firearm. They ruled that the evidence against him was strong, including being caught shortly after the crime and making incriminating statements to police. Therefore, the court upheld part of his punishment but removed one conviction.
In OCCA case No. S-2007-779, Wilma Fay Jackson appealed her conviction for eighty-four felony counts and two misdemeanor counts of Obtaining Money by False Pretenses. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's dismissal of the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Jackson was charged with serious offenses for falsely representing herself as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and receiving payments for work she did under that title. However, the district court found that there wasn't enough evidence to support the claims against her and dismissed the charges. The state then appealed this decision, claiming that the district court made a mistake in its ruling. The court looked closely at the evidence and the laws involved. They determined that the district court had correctly dismissed the charges because the state did not prove that Jackson had committed the crime as charged. The court pointed out that a key part of the crime was missing—a false representation that resulted in getting something of value without giving anything in return. The district court had ruled that the state did not show enough proof that Jackson had committed fraud. In the dissenting opinion, one judge expressed a different view. This judge believed that even though Jackson had worked at the nursing home, she had misrepresented her qualifications. The judge argued that the nursing home had been tricked into paying her as if she was a licensed nurse and that this should matter legally. The dissenting opinion felt that Jackson's actions deprived the nursing home of the services they expected. In conclusion, the appeal did not change the outcome, and the district court's dismissal of the charges against Jackson was upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1339, Robert Larue Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon after being previously convicted of two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Jones's conviction should be reversed and that a retrial should take place with proper instructions. One judge dissented from this decision. Jones was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to fifty years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including whether the evidence was enough to support his conviction, if the jury was properly instructed on his alibi defense, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court determined that the trial court made an error by refusing to allow Jones to offer an alibi defense. It was concluded that he should have been given an instruction regarding this defense because he presented enough evidence to support it. The court noted that the law states a defense should be given when there is sufficient evidence for the jury to consider. Due to the lack of an alibi instruction during the trial, the court found that this mistake was significant enough to require a new trial, where Jones could properly present his defense. The court reversed the previous judgment and ordered a new trial with the right legal instructions provided to the jury. The dissenting opinion argued that the trial court was correct in its decision and that any error in not giving the alibi instruction was not harmful to the overall case.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-58, Fredrick Demon Cleveland appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for possession of cocaine and possession of drug proceeds but reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented from the decision regarding the marijuana conviction. Cleveland was found guilty of three charges: possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, possessing drug proceeds, and possessing marijuana. The court sentenced him to various terms in prison, with some sentences running consecutively and others concurrently. Cleveland raised several points in his appeal. He argued that convicting him for both cocaine and marijuana possession violated his rights because the drugs were found together. The court found that although he possessed both drugs, it counted as a single act of possession under the law. Thus, they reversed the marijuana conviction. Regarding another point, Cleveland claimed that a witness gave inappropriate testimony that swayed the jury. The court acknowledged this concern but determined the error was not big enough to change the overall outcome of the case. They emphasized that other evidence supported the convictions for cocaine possession and drug proceeds. In summary, the court affirmed the convictions for cocaine and the related crimes but dismissed the marijuana charges, reflecting that the possession of different drugs at the same time can lead to different legal interpretations based on state law. One judge, however, believed that the marijuana conviction should have been upheld, arguing the legislature intended for both offenses to be prosecuted even when the drugs were found together.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-408, Johnny Lee Whitworth appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Whitworth was found guilty of killing someone, but the jury believed he was too drunk to intend to kill, so they convicted him of the lesser charge of manslaughter instead of murder. The jury gave him a sentence of 100 years in prison. Whitworth raised several arguments in his appeal: 1. He argued that the jury instructions didn't mention self-defense as a possible defense to manslaughter. 2. He claimed the evidence was not enough to prove he did not act in self-defense. 3. He complained that the jury was not informed about the 85% Rule, which means a person must serve only a portion of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole. 4. He thought his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the jury instructions were overall fair and included necessary information about his defenses. They also concluded that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide against his claim of self-defense. However, the court noted an error regarding the jury not being informed about the 85% Rule when they asked about the actual time Whitworth would serve. This was an important mistake because it might have led the jury to give a longer sentence than they would have if they had understood how the 85% Rule worked. Given that this error occurred and that Whitworth did not have a criminal record, the court decided to reduce his sentence from 100 years to 50 years. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction, they felt it was fair to change Whitworth's sentence to lesser punishment due to the lack of information given to the jury about his potential time in prison.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-228, Gordon Fife Franklin appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Cruelty to Animals. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Cruelty to Animals and to modify the sentences for the remaining convictions to 55 years each instead of 250 years. One judge dissented. Franklin was found guilty by a jury and received a very long sentence for his crimes. The jury thought that his actions were very bad and wanted him to spend a lot of time in prison. However, the court later said the sentences were too long. They decided that the evidence for one of the charges, Cruelty to Animals, was not strong enough to keep that conviction. During the trial, the court let different pieces of evidence be shown to the jury. Some of this evidence was questioned later, but the court said that it didn't really change the outcome of the trial. They said that even though there were mistakes made in the trial, the serious charges of Kidnapping and Assault were still valid. Overall, the court agreed that while Franklin did do some wrong things, the punishments should be reduced to a more reasonable amount of time. In conclusion, Franklin's punishment was lightened, and the charge for hurting the animal was removed completely.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-987, Jimmy Douglas Letterman appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled drug (methamphetamine), unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia, but reversed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1421, Kenneth Ray James appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. The case began when James was found guilty by a jury for assaulting a police officer. The jury decided that James should go to prison for ten years and pay a fine of $5,000. James then appealed this decision, questioning the evidence against him and whether the trial was fair. The court looked at how strong the evidence was, considering if it was good enough for a jury to decide guilt. They concluded that the evidence was strong enough for the jury to find James guilty. James argued that he did not have a fair trial because the jury was not given instructions on how to consider self-defense or lesser offenses. The court decided that the instructions were not needed because the evidence didn't support them, meaning the trial judge did not make a mistake in leaving them out. In the trial, the prosecutor made a statement during closing arguments that suggested jurors should find James guilty to serve and protect the officer involved. The court found this statement to be improper because it pressured jurors to believe they had a civic duty to side with the State. Although this was not objected to during the trial, the court recognized it as a serious mistake but didn’t think it affected the decision to find James guilty. However, the court felt the inappropriate comment might have influenced the jury's decision about the sentence. Therefore, they decided to change the punishment from ten years in prison and a fine to five years in prison without a fine. Overall, even though James's conviction was upheld, the court found a need to adjust the length of his sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision to reduce the sentence, believing there was no significant error in the original trial or sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-773, Alfonzo Daniel appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen and Making Indecent Proposals to a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Daniel was charged with serious crimes in Oklahoma. He went to trial, where the jury found him guilty of two counts. He was given twenty years for each count, and the sentences were to be served one after the other, making it a total of forty years. Mr. Daniel thought the trial was unfair for many reasons and decided to appeal. He raised several complaints about what happened during the trial. He argued that a videotaped interview of him should not have been allowed because it was wrongly obtained. He also claimed the judge didn’t watch the whole tape before deciding it was involuntary. He felt that certain information, known as hearsay, was also improperly shared during the trial, and that some testimonies were included which didn’t really connect to his case. Mr. Daniel believed he couldn't properly defend himself because his questioning of the witness was limited and some rules given to the jury were unfair. After looking through all the records and arguments, the court agreed that the admission of the videotaped interview was a significant mistake. The court stated that this mistake was not minor and could have affected the jury’s decision. Therefore, they decided to send the case back for a new trial, where these mistakes could be corrected. The other points Mr. Daniel raised were not examined further since the first mistake was enough to warrant a new trial. The judge who disagreed believed that the errors made were not significant enough to change the outcome of the trial and felt the conviction should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-268, Martin Roy Romero appealed his conviction for drug-related crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of his convictions but upheld the rest. A judge dissented in part. Romero was found guilty by a jury in Stephens County for three charges: Conspiracy to Traffic in Methamphetamine, Trafficking in Methamphetamine, and Using a Minor to Distribute Methamphetamine. He was sentenced to several years in prison and significant fines. Romero raised several issues on appeal. He claimed that the prosecutor's actions during the trial were unfair and affected his chances for a fair trial. He also argued that he should not have been punished for both conspiracy and trafficking crimes because they stemmed from the same act, saying it was a violation of his rights against double punishment. He thought that the evidence used to convict him of conspiracy was not enough. Lastly, he felt that it was wrong to convict him of using a minor for trafficking and trafficking itself, again arguing it was related to the same act. After reviewing the case, the court found that one of the convictions for trafficking was indeed improperly counted and reversed that decision. They decided that his actions did not violate the rule against double punishment for the other charges. The court concluded that there was enough evidence to support the conspiracy charge. However, the conviction for trafficking was reversed because the same act could not support two different charges. In summary, the court agreed with Romero about the double punishment issue regarding trafficking, but upheld the other convictions. The final decision reversed and remanded the trafficking charge while affirming the rest.