In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0885, Lela Mae Goodwin appealed her conviction for violation of her probation due to several reasons, including drug use and not attending treatment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of her suspended sentences but ordered the district court to remove a part that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-887, Collins appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Here's a brief summary of the case: Mark Stephen Collins was charged with having child pornography in 2010. He pleaded no contest and was given a five-year sentence, with a part of it suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve it in prison if he followed certain rules. However, in 2013, he broke those rules in several ways, like failing drug tests, not attending counseling, and refusing to meet with his supervising officer. Because of this, the state asked to make him serve his whole sentence. During a hearing about the violations, the judge decided it was fair to revoke his suspended sentence because Collins had admitted to breaking the rules. Collins argued that the judge was too harsh in revoking his sentence and that his actions were due to his drug addiction. The court explained that it doesn’t have to be proven that all rules were broken, just that at least one was. Collins also believed that the judge should not have added a year of post-imprisonment supervision after revoking his sentence since it would be a longer punishment than what was originally given. The law allows a judge to require supervision after imprisonment, but the court found that the judge was not allowed to impose it in this situation because it was not part of Collins’ original sentence. In the end, the court agreed with most of the judge's decision to revoke the sentence due to the violations but took away the additional year of supervision because it was not permitted. The case was sent back to the lower court to issue a new order that matched the court's ruling.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0850, Chief Allen Weston appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Choking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to modify the sentence to give Weston credit for the ninety days he had already served in jail during his probation period. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-555, Waylon Dean Snyder appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana within 1,000 Feet from a Park or School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of Snyder from the Drug Court Program and the corresponding order of revocation of his sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Snyder entered a guilty plea on March 11, 2009, and was sentenced to five years in prison, with a condition that most of the sentence would be suspended if he followed specific probation rules. Unfortunately, he did not comply with these rules, leading to a motion filed by the State to revoke his sentence. The court allowed him to enter a Drug Court Program instead of serving time in prison, with the understanding that failing this program would lead to starting his prison sentence. Snyder admitted to struggling with some of the conditions in the Drug Court program but attended regularly and participated in court activities. Despite some positive attendance, problems arose when he allegedly violated more conditions, which led to a motion to terminate him from Drug Court. When the State sought to terminate Snyder's participation in Drug Court, Snyder raised the argument that he had not received written notice detailing the specific violations being used against him for this termination. This lack of notice was crucial because, according to the law, Snyder was entitled to know the reasons behind the State's actions. The court reviewed the earlier actions and concluded that the State did not follow the correct legal process. Specifically, they didn’t provide the necessary updated notice about his violations at this latest hearing. As a result, Snyder's termination from Drug Court was improper. Consequently, the court reversed the decision to terminate Snyder from the program, which also meant he could not be forced to serve the rest of his five-year prison sentence since that order was linked to the termination. The court instructed to dismiss the case since his time under the suspended sentence had legally expired. In conclusion, Snyder's appeal was successful, leading to the reversal of the earlier decisions and allowing him to avoid further penalties stemming from the Drug Court program.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1043, Phillip Wade Barton appealed his conviction for violating probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his ten-year suspended sentence. No one dissented. Phillip Wade Barton had originally pled guilty to trying to make a controlled substance and was given a ten-year suspended sentence in 2010. This meant he wouldn't go to prison, but he had to follow certain rules. In May 2011, he got in trouble again for trying to make a controlled substance, which led the state to ask for his probation to be revoked. In October 2012, a hearing took place to see if Barton really broke the rules of his probation. The state presented only one piece of evidence, which was a document showing that Barton had pleaded guilty to the new crime. However, this document did not prove that he violated his probation since the new crime's judgment was not final. The court stated that for the state to revoke a suspended sentence due to a new crime, they either need to show that the new crime's conviction is final or prove each part of the new crime. Since the state did not provide the necessary evidence, the court agreed with Barton and decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent the case back to the lower court to make sure everything was handled correctly.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-250, Richard Shane Kuehn appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided that the revocation of seven years of Kuehn's twelve-year suspended sentence was reversed because the judge who decided his case had previously worked as a prosecutor on it. Kuehn claimed he did not get a fair hearing because of this, and the court agreed, stating that judges cannot preside over cases in which they have been involved as attorneys without consent from the parties. Kuehn's other claims were not reviewed since the court found for him on the first point.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0672, Wilburn Shawn Crowell appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery-Domestic Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Crowell's suspended sentence and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. The State agreed that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the suspended sentence because it had already expired before the State filed for revocation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0511, Carrie Denise Stumpff appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court failed to ensure that Stumpff knowingly waived her right to an attorney, which required them to reverse the decision and send the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-1076, Stacy Gene Bellis appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Stacy Gene Bellis had originally pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and was sentenced to twelve years, with part of the sentence being suspended if he completed a drug treatment program. However, the State then accused Bellis of breaking the rules of his suspended sentence by committing new crimes. A hearing was held to decide the State's accusations. The judge reviewed evidence from a separate trial Bellis had regarding new charges against him. The judge used this evidence to justify revoking Bellis's suspended sentence. Bellis appealed this decision, arguing that it was wrong for the judge to use evidence from his other trial without his agreement. The court agreed with Bellis, stating that it was not proper to take evidence from one case and use it in another without the defendant's permission. As a result, the court reversed the decision to revoke Bellis's suspended sentence and instructed for a new hearing to take place, where proper evidence should be presented. No other actions were ordered, and the judges involved agreed to this outcome, except for one who had a different opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0523, Michelle Renea Runco appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her suspended sentence and send the case back for a new hearing with legal representation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2013-212, Alvin Lavan Johnson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's revocation order and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In 2003, Johnson was charged with the felony crime of domestic abuse. After pleading guilty in 2004, he received a suspended sentence of seven years. Years later, the State issued a warrant to revoke his suspension. Johnson was arrested and a revocation hearing took place with a judge and a prosecutor who had both been involved in the previous stages of his case. Johnson argued that this created an unfair situation. In his appeal, Johnson raised several points. He claimed that the delay in processing his case required dismissal. He also argued that it was unfair for the same attorney who had defended him to now be prosecuting him, and that the judge who revoked his sentence was involved in the original case. The State admitted errors but thought that a new hearing would be enough to fix the issues. The court agreed with Johnson on two of his claims, stating that the previous judge and prosecutor had conflicts of interest due to their past involvement in the case. Because of this, the court reversed the revocation order and sent the case back for further examination. Johnson will have a chance to present his arguments, including the claim about the delay, in front of a new and impartial judge. The court concluded that the other claims raised by Johnson didn’t need to be discussed at this time.
In OCCA case No. J-2013-87, J.C.T. appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order bridging him to the Department of Corrections and stated that he should be sentenced to twelve years, suspended, and granted credit for time served. One judge dissented. J.C.T. was charged as a youthful offender in 2011 and initially received a twelve-year sentence that was suspended as part of a plea agreement. He was supposed to enter a rehabilitation program. However, after allegations of serious misconduct, the State moved to transfer him to adult custody. A hearing was held to determine whether his actions warranted this change. The court reviewed the evidence and ultimately decided that the state had established a valid reason for transferring J.C.T. to the Department of Corrections. He was found guilty of not complying with the original terms of his sentence. The law allowed for such a transfer based on his behavior while under supervision. During the appeal, J.C.T. raised several issues. He argued that the trial court had misused its discretion by changing the suspension of his sentence to actual time in prison. J.C.T. believed he should only receive the suspended sentence as originally agreed upon. The court had to look at the invalidity of the new sentence imposed and the interpretation of relevant statutes regarding youthful offenders. Ultimately, the OCCA concluded that the district court needed to resentence J.C.T. to follow what was originally agreed—a suspended sentence of twelve years—and provide time served. This ruling was based on the court's interpretation of laws surrounding youthful offenders and the limits on sentencing options upon being bridged to the Department of Corrections. One judge agreed with the majority but argued that the district court had made a correct decision in sentencing J.C.T. to the twelve-year prison term because it reflected a consequence of his violating the terms of his original agreement. However, another judge believed the initial ruling should stand without any changes.
In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0711, Creekmore appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking Creekmore's suspended sentence and remand for a new hearing. One member of the court 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. RE-2012-590, Todd Aaron Henderson appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case back to the District Court of Tulsa County with instructions to vacate the order revoking Henderson's suspended sentence and dismiss the State's application to revoke. No judge dissented. Henderson had first entered a guilty plea for Driving Under the Influence in 2009, and his sentence was put on hold while he completed a drug court program. After successfully finishing the program in January 2011, his charge was changed to a misdemeanor, and he was given a one-year suspended sentence. However, in January 2012, he was stopped by police and faced new charges, including a second DUI. Following these new charges, the State requested to revoke his suspended sentence. In June 2012, the court revoked Henderson's suspended sentence based on the new charges. On appeal, Henderson argued that the court did not have the authority to revoke his sentence because the State filed the application for revocation one day after his sentence had completed. The State agreed with Henderson, stating that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the sentence since the request was submitted after the completion of the suspended sentence. The court ruled in favor of Henderson, reversing the revocation, and ordered the case to be remanded with instructions to dismiss the State's application to revoke his sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1062, Scott Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Phillips' conviction and sentence, but remanded the case for consideration of whether Phillips' sentence should be suspended. One judge dissented. Scott Allen Phillips was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation, which is a serious crime involving inappropriate touching of a child. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, during which he must serve at least 85% before he can be considered for parole. Phillips claimed there were several errors during his trial that should lead to his conviction being overturned. Phillips argued that the prosecutor presented too many instances of inappropriate touching without clearly stating which one he was being accused of for the charge. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction. Additionally, he stated that the judge's decision not to consider a less severe punishment for him was unfair because he exercised his right to a jury trial. Phillips raised multiple issues during the appeal. The court looked at arguments closely and decided that the prosecutor's actions were correct and that they followed the law. They found that there were enough facts for the jury to conclude that Phillips had molested the child. The judges pointed out that the jury's role is to decide who they believe and what evidence to trust. Regarding the sentencing process, the judges noted that the trial judge didn't consider Phillips' request for a lesser sentence. This became important because a judge is expected to think about such requests carefully, regardless of whether the defendant went to trial. This is why the court decided to give the case back to the lower court for a fresh look at Phillips' request for a suspended sentence. Another major point Phillips raised was his concern about how the trial was handled. He asked to speak with jurors after the trial ended, hoping to gather more insight about their decision. However, the court said this was not allowed because jurors cannot discuss their deliberations or decisions after the trial is over. The court also examined the use of videotaped evidence during the trial. Phillips complained that the videos of the alleged victim’s statements should not have been shown again to the jurors while they were discussing. However, the judges felt the decision to show the videos was acceptable and did not harm Phillips' chances at a fair trial. Ultimately, the judges concluded that they would not disturb Phillips' conviction since there was sufficient evidence and no significant errors during the trial that affected the outcome. However, they did want the lower court to look again at Phillips' request for a suspension of his sentence, ensuring he had a fair chance at having that request reviewed properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while allowing the opportunity for reconsideration regarding the potential suspension of the sentence, which shows that even in serious cases, there are processes in place to ensure fair treatment under the law.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-606, Douglas Raymond Norwood appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Norwood's suspended sentences but vacated the portion of the order that unlawfully lengthened his sentences. One judge dissented. Here's a simple summary of what happened in the case: Norwood was given a six-year sentence for possessing cocaine, but this was suspended, meaning he didn’t have to go to jail right away if he followed certain rules. Later, he had problems following those rules, which led to more charges against him for drug possession. He confessed to these new charges and took a plea deal, which resulted in longer sentences. After some time, a judge reviewed his case and decided to reduce his sentences but required him to go to a program called Avalon after he got out of jail. Norwood didn’t manage to get into Avalon because he couldn't pay the admission fees, which led the judge to completely revoke his suspended sentences. Norwood argued in court that the judge shouldn’t have done that because he had followed some of the rules, and he claimed he didn't intend to break those rules. However, the court found that he didn’t follow the requirement to report to Avalon properly. In the final decision, the court agreed with Norwood about a mistake in how his sentence was handled, stating that the judge had taken away more time than he should have. But overall, the court decided that Norwood had violated his probation, so he had to serve his time in jail as determined by the judge.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-562, Jack Joseph Taylor appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided in favor of Taylor, reversing the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Taylor entered a guilty plea in 2001 to arson and conspiracy to commit arson, leading to a ten-year sentence, most of which was suspended under probation conditions. In 2011, the State accused him of violating his probation due to a new charge of child abuse. A different judge held the hearing, during which he checked evidence from Taylor's new case and found that Taylor had violated his probation. However, he postponed deciding on the punishment until after the new trial. The new trial resulted in a conviction for child abuse, with a ten-year sentence. The judge then revoked Taylor's suspended sentence, which led him to appeal. Taylor argued that he did not receive a fair hearing because the judge presiding over the revocation was previously involved as a prosecutor in his original case. The court ruled that it is important for judges to be neutral and not have prior involvement in cases they are deciding. The court found that the judge should have recused himself due to his past connection with Taylor's case, stating that a decisionmaker must be fair and detached according to legal standards. Ultimately, the court determined that the revocation hearing was not handled correctly and ordered a new hearing before a different judge.
In OCCA case No. RE 2011-0359, Lorance Ridell Dever appealed his conviction for a violation of probation after pleading guilty to Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case, meaning they disagreed with the lower court's decision to revoke his suspended sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-762, Mason appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Mason's suspended sentence but ordered a correction regarding the time served. One judge dissented. Mason had previously entered a guilty plea for a drug-related charge and received a suspended sentence, which meant he didn’t have to go to prison immediately but had to follow certain rules. Over time, he violated those rules several times. The state government, which is responsible for enforcing the law, filed multiple applications to revoke his suspended sentence due to his failures to comply with the terms of probation. He confessed to some of the allegations against him, such as not completing community service and not paying fees. After multiple chances and extensions given by the court to fix his issues, Mason still did not follow the rules. For example, he used drugs again and didn’t seek help as he was supposed to. At a hearing, the court found that Mason did not meet the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his suspended sentence completely. Mason argued that the court shouldn’t have been able to take away the whole suspended sentence because he had already served some time. The court agreed that Mason needed to be credited for time served but found it was appropriate to revoke the rest of the suspended sentence given that he didn’t comply when given chances. The final decision was to affirm the judgment that Mason had violated probation, but with instructions to the lower court to ensure they correctly noted how much time was left on his sentence. In conclusion, while Mason's appeal did not succeed in changing the outcome of the revocation, he was recognized for the days he had already spent in custody.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-249, the appellant appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and causing an accident resulting in great bodily injury while driving under the influence. In a published decision, the court decided that the order revoking the appellant's suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion and modified the sentence to time served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-819, Joshua Dee Taylor appealed his conviction for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Abuse-Assault and Battery in Presence of Minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of three years of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Joshua Dee Taylor was sentenced for two crimes: one serious and one misdemeanor. These were combined into a single sentence where he was supposed to serve time in prison but was allowed to stay out under certain rules, like not leaving Oklahoma without permission and taking his medication. However, he got into trouble after the state said he broke the rules of his probation. The state said Taylor didn’t report to his probation officer, left the state without permission, didn’t pay required fees, and had trouble with taking his medications. Because of these violations, the court held a hearing and decided that he had indeed violated the rules. The judge revoked part of his probation, taking away three years of his suspended sentence. In his appeal, Taylor claimed the judge made mistakes in deciding to revoke his probation. He argued that the written order did not match what the judge said in court and that the judge unfairly included conditions that were not agreed upon verbally. He also claimed the decision to revoke was unreasonable because his mental state made it hard for him to follow the instructions. Taylor said he could not pay the probation fees and that there were many errors made during his case. The court looked closely at his arguments. They noticed that there was an error in the written order compared to what was said in court and suggested the lower court fix this. However, they decided that even with this error, the other reasons for revoking his probation were valid, and he still broke the rules by not complying. Even though they acknowledged his points about medication and fees, they agreed that other violations were enough to support the judge’s decision to revoke his probation. They stated that he understood the rules but chose not to follow them. The appeal resulted in the court affirming the revocation while instructing the lower court to correct the paperwork.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-277, Johnson appealed his conviction for Feloniously Carrying a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated an additional Victim Compensation Assessment. Johnson dissented. The case began when Johnson entered a guilty plea on August 3, 2005, and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with six months of that sentence being served in jail and the rest suspended, meaning he wouldn't have to serve it unless he broke the law again. He was also fined and had to pay a fee for victim compensation to help those who had been hurt by crimes. Later, in November 2005, the State, which is like the government in this case, claimed Johnson broke his probation by getting into trouble again, which included resisting arrest and having drugs. Because of this, on March 10, 2006, the court decided to make him serve eighteen months of his suspended sentence. Johnson continued to have problems. He was charged with more crimes in 2008, including stealing from a house and having drugs. He went through a special program to help people with drug problems and successfully finished it. In June 2010, the court dismissed some applications to revoke his probation because of progress he made. However, on March 1, 2011, the State filed another application saying Johnson broke the rules again, claiming he tried to escape from the police, attacked a police officer, and had more drugs. A hearing was held on March 14, 2011, where the judge decided to revoke ninety months of Johnson's suspended sentence. Johnson argued in his appeal that the judge was wrong to make him pay another victim compensation fee during the revocation hearing. He believed this fee could only be applied when someone was first convicted, and since the revocation wasn't a new conviction, he shouldn’t have to pay it again. The State said it didn’t matter since the record only showed the original fee, but Johnson insisted the extra fee should be removed. The court agreed with Johnson, explaining that a victim compensation fee should only be applied at the time of the original sentencing, not at a revocation hearing. Therefore, the court decided to remove the $200 fee that was added during the revocation. In his final point, Johnson asked the court to lessen the time he had to serve because he had made improvements while on probation. However, the court found that the judge in charge did not abuse his discretion in deciding how long to revoke Johnson's suspended sentence. Overall, the court confirmed the revocation of Johnson’s sentence but dismissed the new Victim Compensation fee.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-706, Cynthia McGhee appealed her conviction for embezzlement and using a computer to defraud. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking three years of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Here is a brief summary of the case: Cynthia McGhee was originally sentenced in 2004 for embezzlement and related charges. She received a total of fifty years in prison, but twenty of those years were suspended, meaning she did not have to serve that time in prison as long as she followed certain rules. One of the rules was that she had to pay back a large amount of money, over $244,000, which she had taken in the embezzlement. In 2010, the state accused her of not paying the money she owed. A judge held a hearing to discuss this. McGhee admitted she did not pay the restitution but argued that it was not because she didn't want to, but because she couldn't afford to. The judge decided to revoke three years of her suspended sentence because McGhee failed to pay. On appeal, the court looked at whether the district judge made a mistake. The court found that McGhee had shown enough evidence to suggest that her inability to pay was not her fault. They explained that a person's probation should not be revoked for not paying money unless it is proven they could have paid it and chose not to. The original judge had not considered McGhee's ability to pay when making the decision. Therefore, the Court of Criminal Appeals decided that the revocation of McGhee's suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion, meaning the judge made a wrong choice. They reversed the decision and sent the case back for a new hearing to determine if McGhee could pay the restitution.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-457, Jacquelin Clariece Alexander appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for one charge, but reversed the revocation for the other charge, sending it back for dismissal. One member of the court dissented.