In OCCA case No. RE-2010-403, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Casey's suspended sentence but instructed the District Court to correct the record to reflect that nine total years were revoked. No one dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-9, Steven B. Baker appealed his conviction for misdemeanor Resisting an Officer and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences, but recognized that Appellant was entitled to credit for time he had already served. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2010-0600, Beau Ashley Kifer appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences for two of the counts but reversed the revocation for the other two counts because the court did not have the authority to act on those counts since the sentences had already expired. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-10, a person appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided that the length of the revoked suspended sentence should be shortened. One member of the court disagreed with this decision. The case began when the person was charged and sentenced as a Youthful Offender for lewd molestation. He was given eight years, but on December 22, 2008, he had part of that sentence suspended after spending some time in juvenile custody. Later, he was accused of breaking the rules of his probation, which included failing to register as a sex offender and not completing required treatment. During a hearing, the judge decided that the individual had violated his probation and revoked five years of his suspended sentence. However, upon appeal, the court found that he should actually receive credit for the time he was under juvenile supervision. Given this credit from December 1, 2005, to December 22, 2008, the court modified the revocation to just over four years instead of five. The district court was instructed to update the sentence accordingly.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-655, Paul Renodo Epperson appealed his conviction for violating a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of part of his suspended sentence but vacated the assessment of jail fees that had not yet been incurred. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-1019, Rico Raynelle Pearson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation from a full seven years to three years with four years remaining suspended. One judge dissented. The case involved two prior cases where Pearson pleaded guilty to drug-related charges and received a suspended sentence of seven years. However, the State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentence after he allegedly committed new violations, including possession of drugs and traffic offenses. During the revocation hearing, the judge determined that Pearson had violated his probation and revoked his suspended sentence completely. However, Pearson argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that the punishment was too harsh for the minor violations he committed. The appeals court agreed that the original decision to revoke the entire sentence was excessive because the stated reasons were not correct and the violations were minor. The court noted that one reason for the revocation was based on a misunderstanding regarding earlier convictions that were not relevant. Consequently, they reduced the length of the revocation while still affirming the revocation of some portion of his sentences.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-239, the appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of revocation to allow for concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences. One judge dissented regarding the finding of excessiveness in the revocation order. In the case, the appellant, who was originally given the benefit of a deferred sentence and then suspended sentences, was accused of violating his probation by not reporting to his probation officer. The sentencing judge ultimately revoked his suspended sentences and imposed a total of eight years in prison, which he argued was excessive. The court reviewed the record and statements made by the judge during the revocation hearing. They determined that although the judge had the power to revoke less than the full suspension, the circumstances of the case warranted a modification to allow the sentences to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively as originally ordered. Additionally, the appellant contended that a second assessment for victim compensation was unlawful, as it exceeded the statutory limit. However, the court noted that the compensation assessments were appropriate and not void, concluding that this issue did not affect the validity of the revocation order itself. The final decision directed the district court to change the revocation order to reflect concurrent serving of sentences while affirming the other aspects of the revocation.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-535, Joseph Lander Smith appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Smith's sentence from twenty-five years to seventeen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Joseph Lander Smith was found guilty by a jury for distributing a controlled substance after he had a previous felony conviction. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, which the judge agreed to, making it run consecutively with another sentence he was already serving. Smith raised several arguments in his appeal. He first claimed that he didn't get a fair trial because the prosecutor didn’t share important information that could have helped his case. The information was about a witness who helped the state. This witness had her own past troubles with the law but the jury was not told about them. Smith argued that this was wrong because it might have changed how the jury viewed that witness's testimony. Next, Smith said it wasn't right for the jury to know about his previous suspended sentence during the trial. He believed that mentioning this past sentence by the prosecutor made the jury biased against him and influenced the punishment they decided on. The jury even had questions about how his past might relate to their decision, which showed they were affected by this information. Smith also argued that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him by failing to investigate these issues properly. However, the court thought that the evidence against him was strong and that the errors made during the trial, while present, did not change his guilt. Still, the judge decided that the combination of these errors meant that Smith should not serve the full twenty-five years, so his sentence was reduced to seventeen years instead. Ultimately, the court affirmed Smith's conviction but changed his sentence to make it lighter, acknowledging the mistakes made during the trial without completely overturning the conviction.
In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0510, Edward Q. Jones appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation. One judge dissented. Edward Jones had previously pled guilty to domestic abuse and was sentenced to a few years in jail, with most of that time suspended, meaning he wouldn’t serve it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he had problems following those rules, which led the State to ask the court to revoke his suspended sentence. There were two main hearings regarding this. In the first hearing, the judge found that Edward had broken the probation rules and took away three and a half years of his suspended time. Edward didn't appeal that decision. Later, the State filed another request to revoke his sentence, saying he had not followed the rules again. In the second hearing, the judge decided to take away all of his suspended time. Edward argued that he should have had a lawyer to help him at the hearing, which he really wanted. He felt that the short time between being told he could have a lawyer and the date of his hearing was not enough time for him to get one. He argued that he was unfairly treated without a lawyer and that he shouldn’t have to suffer because he missed a deadline due to a lack of money for the application fee to get a lawyer. The State countered by saying that since Edward didn't file for a court-appointed lawyer by the deadline set by the judge, he gave up his right to have one. They also argued that the right to have a lawyer at a revocation hearing is not a constitutional right but a statutory right. They said he didn't get the lawyer because he wasn't trying hard enough to get one and was just delaying things. The judges looked at earlier cases where people were found to have given up their right to a lawyer because they didn't act quickly enough to get one. They concluded that while there was a short delay for Edward, the reasons didn't clearly show he was deliberately trying to delay his hearing. They pointed out that Edward might not have known what he was doing in waiving his right to counsel, and the judge didn't look into whether he could have afforded a lawyer or not. After reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the court decided that Edward was not fairly represented when he attended his hearing without a lawyer. They noted that there was conflicting testimony from police officers about the events leading to his probation violations, which made it difficult for them to feel confident about the decision made at the hearing. Because of these issues, the court reversed the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent it back to the district court to hold a new hearing where Edward could have a lawyer or show he knew he was giving up that right clearly. In doing so, they ordered that any confusion or problems found in the previous record should be clarified.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-0510, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant, who had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, was sentenced to five years, with certain conditions. His sentence was largely suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve most of it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he faced trouble when the state accused him of violating those rules. There were two applications made by the state to revoke his suspended sentence. The first happened in 2007, where a judge found he broke the terms of his probation and took away three and a half years of his suspended sentence. He did not appeal this decision. The second application was filed in 2009, which led to a hearing in May of that year. During this hearing, the judge determined that the appellant had again violated the rules, resulting in a decision to revoke his entire suspended sentence. The appellant claimed he did not have a lawyer during the revocation hearing. He argued that he was not given enough time to find one and that this hurt his case. The state responded that the appellant missed the deadline to apply for a court-appointed lawyer and therefore gave up his right to have legal help. They believed he was trying to delay the hearing. The law states that individuals at revocation hearings should have the right to have a lawyer, but the court can proceed if a person knowingly waives that right. In earlier similar cases, if judges found an individual was just trying to delay things, they ruled that the person voluntarily gave up their right to have a lawyer. In this case, the court found that the appellant's delay of only six days did not show he was deliberately trying to postpone the proceedings. They also noted the lack of a proper review regarding whether he was unable to afford a lawyer. As a result, the appeal had merit, and his claim for lack of counsel was upheld. Since the court noted conflicts in the testimony presented during the hearing, they decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. They ordered that a new hearing take place, ensuring that the appellant has the chance to be represented by a lawyer or that his waiver of that right is properly recorded. In summary, the court ruled that the process leading to the revocation had issues that warranted a new hearing, ensuring fairness and proper legal representation for the appellant.
In OCCA case No. RE-2010-304, Jason Dean Vansickle appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order related to his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Jason was found guilty of two counts of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. The judge initially decided to wait five years before making a final decision about Jason's punishment, allowing him to follow some rules during that time. But later, the state said Jason broke those rules by using drugs and not paying fees. After a hearing, the judge decided that Jason did break the rules and ordered that he serve a year in jail. The judge added that if Jason could finish rehab during that year, he could avoid additional punishment. Jason disagreed with the judge's decision, especially the part about needing to serve a calendar year in jail, believing it meant he had to stay there every day without earning any time off. The court agreed with Jason that the judge didn't have the authority to set his punishment this way. It clarified that any time taken off his punishment should be based on the original sentence without this added calendar requirement. The court decided that the year part of the sentence, as described by the judge, should be changed. They kept the other parts of the judge's decision the same but removed the requirement for serving a calendar year in jail. Overall, the case highlighted that judges must follow specific rules when deciding on punishments and that adding extra conditions could go beyond what they are allowed to do.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-1, Hoffman appealed his conviction for three counts of Unlawful Distribution of a Controlled Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to ten years in each count but affirmed the conviction. One judge dissented, suggesting the sentences should be served at the same time rather than one after the other.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-824, Allen James Taylor appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including conspiracy and burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court but ordered that his sentences should be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant had agreed to plead guilty and was initially sentenced with his sentences suspended, meaning he would not serve time in prison right away but had to follow conditions of probation. Later, the appellant breached the terms of his probation, leading to the state applying to revoke his suspended sentences. He then participated in a Drug Court program, which was intended to help him with substance abuse issues. However, after a while, he was terminated from this program due to more violations. When he was removed from Drug Court, the court ended up ordering him to serve his sentences one after the other instead of at the same time, which was against what was originally agreed upon. The court felt that this was not right and decided that the sentences should indeed run at the same time, completing the original terms set forth at the beginning. The appellant argued that he was not correctly represented by his lawyer when he entered Drug Court and that his original guilty plea should not be valid. However, the court noted these concerns were not the focus of this specific appeal regarding the Drug Court termination. In the end, the court confirmed the appellant’s Drug Court termination but corrected how his sentences were to be served, stating they should be concurrent rather than consecutive. This concluded the key aspects of the case.
In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0080, Zachary Glenn Hayes appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the order requiring him to pay jail costs. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-753, the Appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana and driving while privilege revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the Appellant's suspended sentences for most counts, but vacated the revocation of the suspended sentence for one count because the Appellant had already served that sentence. One member of the court dissented. Here's what happened: The Appellant had entered guilty pleas for multiple charges, including possession of drugs and driving offenses, and was given suspended sentences, meaning he would not serve time in jail as long as he followed the rules of his probation. Later, the state accused the Appellant of breaking the rules of his probation. After a hearing, the judge ruled to revoke all of his suspended sentences. The Appellant appealed, arguing that one part of the judge's decision was incorrect because he had already finished serving that part of his sentence. The court agreed and decided to remove the part of the revocation related to that count. However, the court did not find that the judge acted unfairly or excessively in revoking the other suspended sentences, as the Appellant did not comply with the probation requirements despite being given a second chance. In summary, while the Appellant lost the chance to keep those suspended sentences, one mistake in the original order was corrected.
In OCCA case No. RE-2008-880, William John Myers appealed his conviction for two counts of Second Degree Arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order in one of the cases but affirmed the revocation in the other case. One judge dissented. Myers had earlier pleaded guilty to two arson offenses and received a suspended sentence of 20 years, with the first 7 years of that sentence active, meaning he had to serve that time in prison unless he followed probation rules. Later, in 2008, the court found that he had broken the rules of his probation, leading to the judge revoking the suspended part of his sentence. Myers argued that one of his revocations should not have happened because the State did not file a required petition to seek that revocation. The court agreed with him, stating that without the petition, they did not have the authority to revoke his sentence for that case. However, for the other case, where Myers had also violated probation, the court held that the decision to fully revoke the suspended sentence was within the trial court's discretion, and they found no mistake in that ruling. Therefore, the court decided to reverse the order about the first case but keep the revocation in place for the second case. This means that Myers still has to serve part of his sentence for the second case while the order regarding the first case was sent back to the lower court to clarify that he still has his suspended sentence in that case.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-531, Jim Evans appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug and embezzlement. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from Drug Court and vacate part of his sentence. One judge dissented. On November 29, 2006, Jim Evans pleaded guilty to two crimes: possession of a controlled drug after having a felony conviction, and embezzlement. The court sentenced him to five years for possession and one year for embezzlement, with both sentences running at the same time. He could avoid serving this time if he successfully completed a Drug Court program, but if he failed, he would have to serve his sentences. On May 22, 2008, Evans was taken out of the Drug Court program, leading to his appeal. He claimed three main issues: First, during his hearing, he wasn't properly confronted with a witness against him, and his lawyer let him say things that made him look guilty. Second, he thought the court made a mistake by considering evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed. Third, he argued the court couldn't extend his probation past his original sentence. About the first two points, Evans said his lawyer should have stopped the officer from speaking about what another person said. He contended this wasn't fair. The court examined his claims and found that the rights in Drug Court are not as extensive as in normal criminal trials. It noted that some statements made by the officer were acceptable under the law. For the last point, Evans pointed out that his one-year sentence had ended, and the court didn’t have the authority to give him more time. The State, which was appealing against him, admitted that it was a mistake to extend his probation beyond his original sentence. Ultimately, the court agreed with Evans on his last point and decided to change the records by vacating the one-year sentence for embezzlement. However, the court also confirmed the decision to remove Evans from the Drug Court program.
In OCCA case No. RE 2008-0961, Adrian Smith appealed his conviction for robbery and burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but also ordered that the judgment be corrected to show that he had nine years remaining instead of ten years. One judge dissented. Adrian Smith had pleaded guilty to several crimes, including robbery with a weapon. He got a sentence of ten years for each crime, but all of them were set to run at the same time, which means he would only serve the longest sentence. If he completed a substance abuse program, he would not have to serve the sentences after the first year. After being released, the state asked to take back his suspended sentence because they believed he had not followed the rules. After a court hearing, the judge decided to revoke the suspended sentences completely. Smith then appealed, saying the judge made mistakes. First, Smith claimed the judge was wrong to revoke his sentence for ten years. However, the state agreed that it should state nine years instead. Second, Smith argued that he did not get a fair process because the judge did not write down why his sentence was revoked. The court found that he was given enough information about why this decision was made, so he was not denied due process. Lastly, Smith argued that revoking his full sentences was too much. The court concluded that the judge had the right to make this decision and found no abuse of discretion. In the end, the appeal confirmed that the sentences would stay revoked but corrected the record to show the appropriate time remaining.
In OCCA case No. RE-2007-1233, Jeffrey Allen Holden appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape and one count of First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's ruling and dismiss the State's application to revoke Holden's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holden had originally entered a guilty plea and was given a long sentence with part of it suspended. However, he was accused of violating probation by contacting the victim while in prison. The rules say that a hearing to revoke a suspended sentence needs to happen within twenty days after the guilty plea. When the second hearing wasn't conducted on time, Holden argued that the court didn't have the power to proceed. The court ultimately agreed with Holden, ruling that the process was not followed correctly, and because of this, they did not have the authority to go forward with the revocation. Therefore, the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the application.
In OCCA case No. RE 2008-411, Rocky Allen McCracken appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but modified his five-year sentence to time served. One judge dissented.
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. RE-2008-599, Betty Sue Black appealed her conviction for obtaining cash by false pretenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of her probation and dismiss the State's motion to revoke her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Betty Sue Black was sentenced to ten years in prison for her crime, but she only had to serve one year in jail if she followed the rules of her probation. She was also required to pay a fine and make restitution, which means she had to pay back money she owed. After being released from jail, her first payment was due in January 2008. However, in January, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to revoke her probation, claiming she had failed to make her restitution payment. A hearing was held, where it was found that she was unable to pay because of her financial situation. She had disabilities that affected her ability to get a job, and she lived with her sick daughter. There was no proof that she could pay the $200 she owed at that time. The court found that the only issue was her failure to pay the restitution, and they agreed that this was not a good reason for revoking her probation since she couldn't pay. They ruled that it was not fair to revoke her for something she could not control. The appellate court decided to reverse the revocation order and directed that the motion to revoke her probation be dismissed because they felt that the trial court had made a mistake in the decision. The dissenting judge believed that the trial court had not made an error and felt that the judge should be trusted to make these decisions based on what he heard and saw during the hearings.
In OCCA case No. F 2007-1165, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated his participation in the Drug Court program and instructed to reinstate him into the program. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to two charges related to drug possession in 2003 and was given a sentence with most of it suspended. After allegations of new violations in 2006, he entered the Drug Court program, which aimed to help him stay away from drugs. However, the State filed to terminate him from the program in 2007, claiming he violated the rules. During the appeal, the appellant argued that the court made a mistake by ending his participation in Drug Court. The court considered whether the reasons for termination were valid. The violations included not completing community service, not writing sentences for a sanction, and not bringing a required book to a meeting. However, evidence showed that the appellant was making progress, had a job, and had been clean for a good period. The court found that the claimed violations weren't enough to justify removing him from the program because there was no clear deadline for completing the tasks. The court emphasized that relapses can happen during rehabilitation and that participants should be given chances to improve. Ultimately, they believed that the appellant was still on the right path and deserved to stay in the Drug Court program. The decision was to reverse the termination and allow the appellant to continue with the program. The dissenting opinion argued that the appellant had not followed the rules enough and that the court had to be strict to help him take responsibility for his actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the sentence imposed by the District Court was vacated, and the case was remanded to determine the total number of days served under the original sentence. In C-2007-743, the judgment and sentence for Burglary in the Second Degree was affirmed, but the District Court was directed to correct the journal entry regarding prior felony convictions. #1 dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence from the District Court in Case No. CF-2004-31 and remand it back for further proceedings, specifically to determine the unserved portion of Long's sentence. Additionally, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence in CF-2006-90, which was for Burglary in the Second Degree. The court clarified that a prior felony conviction enhanced Long's sentence for the burglary conviction. One member of the court dissented.