In OCCA case No. RE-2006-262, Gessel appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Gessel’s revocation was not valid due to a lack of adequate notice about the reasons for his revocation. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1032, Natalie Blades appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but remanded the case to ensure that the sentences would run concurrently instead of consecutively. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2005-536, a person appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana and other offenses. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the lower court that had revoked his suspended sentences. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0473, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences because the hearing was not held within the required twenty days. The appellant had a dissenting opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-1015, the appellant appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the suspended sentence for Lewd Molestation and reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence for Rape in the First Degree. One judge dissented. The appellant had previously entered a plea of no contest in 2001 to charges of Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. After this, he was given a ten-year sentence for each charge, which was suspended. However, in 2003, the State filed an Application to Revoke the appellant's suspended sentences, claiming he had violated several conditions of his probation, such as not paying fees and not attending counseling. During a hearing, the appellant admitted to violating the terms of his probation. Initially, the court held off on revoking his sentence to give him chances to comply with the rules. However, after several reviews and additional hearings, the court eventually revoked his sentences in 2004. The appellant argued that the court did not have the right to keep reviewing his case or to revoke his sentences because he believed the last filed application to revoke had expired by that time. The court found that it had been monitoring the appellant's progress, showing that it was acting out of leniency. The appellant also stated that he was not properly notified of the issues to be addressed at the last hearing. In the court's decision, it was explained that when someone admits to violating probation rules, it is generally accepted that the court can act on that admission. The court noted that the legal standard for revoking a suspended sentence is not very high and concluded that they did not find any error with the decision during the hearings. However, the appellant sought to vacate his conviction for Rape, claiming he was underage at the time of the offense and thus legally not able to have committed the crime as defined by the law. The court ultimately agreed with the appellant that there was a critical error regarding the age requirement for a Rape conviction. They decided to reverse the revocation of that particular sentence and stated that the Judgment and Sentence for Count I should be vacated and dismissed entirely. So, the final decision was to keep the revocation of the sentence for Lewd Molestation but to remove the conviction for Rape due to the age issue, allowing for a correction of that mistake in legal proceedings.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-435, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and return the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In the original case, the appellant pleaded guilty to three counts involving illegal drugs. The judge sentenced him to several years in prison but suspended the sentences with conditions, including not using drugs or not violating any laws. Later, the state asked to revoke his suspended sentences because he was arrested for new drug-related crimes. The state claimed he broke the terms of his probation. During a hearing, the appellant's probation officer testified but did not have direct evidence against the appellant, like a confession or firsthand knowledge, which led to questions about the evidence's reliability. The judge revoked the appellant's probation, but the appeals court found the evidence insufficient to support this decision. They explained that the state did not provide enough solid proof that the appellant committed new crimes and emphasized the importance of the right to confront witnesses when proving probation violations. As a result, the court reversed the revocation decision and ordered the case to be sent back for further proceedings.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-902, Toni Jo Wallace appealed her conviction for obtaining merchandise by means of a bogus check. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but modified her sentence in Case No. CF-2000-225 from five years to one year. One judge dissented. Toni Jo Wallace faced multiple charges over several cases, including obtaining goods through a bogus check and various charges related to forgery and possession of drugs. Her sentences were initially suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she stayed out of trouble. However, she committed new crimes and failed to pay fines, leading the state to seek the revocation of her suspended sentences. During the hearing, the judge found that Wallace did violate the terms of her probation and decided to revoke the suspended sentences in all her cases. Wallace argued that the judge made a mistake by revoking all her suspended sentences instead of giving her a chance to improve or face less severe punishment. She also felt that the punishment she received was too harsh and that the judge should not have made her new sentences serve longer than her original agreement. The court reviewed the judge's decision and felt that it was within his rights to revoke the sentences. They noted the importance of following through on punishments when someone breaks the rules again. However, they agreed that the initial five-year sentence for one of the charges was longer than allowed by law, so they shortened that sentence. In the end, while Wallace's appeal did not succeed in reversing her convictions, she did see a reduction in one of her sentences. The court emphasized that following the rules is essential, especially for someone on probation, while also ensuring sentences are fair and within legal limits.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-86 and RE-2003-87, Christi Marie Farris appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but remanded the case to the district court to order that the sentences be served concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-1124, Earnest Williams appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences in three cases but vacated the revocation of one case because it was found that the court did not have the authority to revoke that particular sentence. One judge dissented on part of the decision.
In OCCA case No. M-2002-263, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a published decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, the appellant, who we will call #1, had several legal issues. He was found guilty of different crimes related to driving, like drinking and driving and having an open container of alcohol in his car. Because of these convictions, he received various punishments, including jail time and fines. #1 claimed that he should not have been punished multiple times for what he did, saying it violated his rights. He also believed that the punishment he received was too harsh and did not follow the law. The court looked at everything and decided that #1's convictions were valid and should stay. However, they also believed that the sentences should be changed. Instead of the original punishments, they modified them to be a total of 60 days, and all fines and costs were put on hold. This was a fair decision considering the circumstances, and it meant that #1 would not have to serve as much time as originally decided. The decision seemed mostly agreed upon by the judges, but one judge thought differently and did not agree with the majority's opinion.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1209, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including kidnapping and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to several serious charges in 1992, including kidnapping and rape, and received suspended sentences, meaning he wouldn't serve time in prison as long as he followed certain rules. Later, a protective order was issued against him due to concerns from another person. Over the years, he faced more legal issues, including a new conviction in 1997. In 2000, the state asked the court to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he violated the protective order. After a hearing, the court revoked all his suspended sentences. The appellant disagreed with this decision and pointed out four main problems with how his case was handled. He argued that his new sentence was too long, that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he broke the protective order, that the revocation was unfair, and that he didn’t properly receive notice about the charges. The court reviewed his claims and found that there was enough evidence to support the revocation of his sentences and that the trial court made a reasonable decision. However, the court also agreed with the appellant that his sentence for one charge was incorrectly stated as nine years when it should have been seven years. In the end, the court upheld the revocation of his suspended sentences but changed his sentence for the kidnapping charge to the correct length.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1566, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession and distribution of controlled drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the order that suspended the appellant's sentences and remanded the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty of possessing cocaine, methamphetamine, and distributing drugs to a minor. These offenses happened on January 30, 1994, and the appellant entered guilty pleas on March 27, 1995. As part of a plea agreement, the state recommended a fifteen-year sentence for each charge, which was to be served concurrently. The court accepted the pleas and suspended the sentences under probation conditions. In 1998, the state sought to revoke the suspended sentences because the appellant was allegedly found in possession of methamphetamine. During the revocation hearing, the judge ordered the sentences to be revoked in full based on the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the case should be sent back to the lower court, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea, referencing a previous case for support. The court noted that the appellant had not previously disclosed several felony convictions before accepting his guilty plea, which raised questions about the validity of the initial suspended sentence. The court ruled that the suspensions were invalid due to legislative restrictions against suspending sentences for individuals with previous felony convictions. As a result, the court instructed the lower court to hold further proceedings consistent with the decision referenced in the previous case. Additionally, it was ordered that the appellant be given a chance to withdraw his guilty plea. If he chose to do so, the prior convictions would be vacated, allowing the state to prosecute him again if necessary. If he decided to keep the guilty plea, the sentences would be executed immediately, with credit given for the time already served. Ultimately, the court's decision led to the dismissal of remaining errors regarding the revocation orders, as they were deemed moot now that the suspension orders were vacated.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1010, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, failure to affix a tax stamp, unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful use of a police radio, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentences but also ordered that the sentences for two specific charges be modified to ensure they were within the legal limits set by statute. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE 2000-0434, Jeremy Keith Wright appealed his conviction for participating in a riot and conspiring to commit a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: Jeremy Keith Wright had been found guilty of participating in a riot and conspiracy. He was given a chance to stay out of jail by having his sentences suspended for three years, along with some rules to follow. He also had to pay a fine and fees. Later, the State of Oklahoma wanted to take away his suspended sentences because they believed he violated the rules. On March 6, 2000, they filed a request, but Jeremy wasn’t given a hearing on this until March 28, which was more than the twenty days they were allowed according to the law. Jeremy argued that the court should not have held the revocation hearing after the twenty days were up without his permission. The judges looked carefully at this issue. They concluded that since the hearing was late and there was no proof that Jeremy agreed to wait longer, they could not uphold the revocation. Therefore, the court reversed the decision made by the trial court and sent the case back for more action according to their ruling.
In OCCA case No. RE-2000-841, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided that the appellant's revoked sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented.