Texas County Archives - OCCA Opinions

RE-2020-501

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2022
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2020-501, Kaylen Harrison Rice appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but vacated the portion that required him to remain under supervision. One judge dissented. Kaylen Harrison Rice had previously been given suspended sentences for his crimes. He was supposed to follow certain rules instead of serving time in jail, but the rules changed to make his crime less serious. A new law stated that if someone is being revoked for a crime that is now seen as less serious, their punishment must follow the new law's limits. Kaylen argued that his one-year revocation was too long given the new law. However, the court found that the existing rules and his situation didn’t allow for the changes he suggested. During his revocation hearing, Kaylen raised concerns about being supervised after his jail time, saying that the law did not allow for that kind of supervision for his crime. The State acknowledged this point but later dropped the argument, which meant the court didn't consider it. The court decided that since the State had waived its right to challenge this part, it could not revisit it in Kaylen's appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to revoke Kaylen's suspended sentences but overturned the requirement that he be supervised, which was not allowed under the new law.

C-2018-943

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. M 2018-0277, the appellant appealed his conviction for speeding (21-25 mph over the limit). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence from the District Court. One judge dissented. The appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial in Texas County. He was fined $10.00 for speeding. During the appeal, the appellant claimed that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indeed speeding. He argued that there was no rule in Oklahoma law that allowed a speeding conviction based solely on visual estimation. The State countered this claim by saying that Oklahoma law does not require a radar gun to show that someone was speeding. A trained Oklahoma State Trooper testified that he could visually estimate a vehicle's speed within 5 miles per hour of its real speed. He specifically said that he saw the appellant's vehicle speeding. The court reviewed the evidence to see if a reasonable person could find that the essential parts of the speeding crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that any logical juror could decide that there was enough proof of the speeding violation. In conclusion, the court upheld the appellant's conviction for speeding, stating that the evidence presented was sufficient.

S-2018-613

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 10, 2019
Post category:S

This document is a correction order from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma regarding the Appellate Case No. S-2018-613, involving appellant Anthony Cole Davis and the appellee, The State of Oklahoma. On May 2, 2019, the court issued a summary opinion that affirmed the district court's order in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2018-59. However, it was noted that there was an error in the opinion, specifically a reference to Rogers County that should have stated Texas County. The correction clarifies this mistake, ensuring that the opinion accurately reflects the correct jurisdiction. The order is dated May 10, 2019, and is signed by Presiding Judge David B. Lewis, with the court clerk, John D. Hadden, attesting to the correction. For those interested, there is a link provided to download the corrected PDF of the opinion.

C 2002-1379

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2002-1379, the petitioner appealed his conviction for kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal and remand the case for a proper hearing on the petitioner's application to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. The case started when the petitioner entered a guilty plea to the crime of kidnapping. He was sentenced to seventeen years in prison as part of a plea agreement. However, shortly after, the petitioner wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He filed a motion for this, but during the hearing, he was not present, even though he had the right to be there. His lawyer asked the court to move forward without him, believing it was best since the petitioner was already in custody. The court looked at whether the absence of the petitioner from this critical hearing was a serious mistake. The petitioner did not agree to waive his right to be present, which the court pointed out as important. The judges discussed that being absent from such a crucial part of the trial could lead to unfair treatment. While the State argued that the absence was not a big deal and didn't affect the outcome, the court disagreed. They emphasized that this hearing was meant to gather facts and needed the petitioner's presence. The court found that merely saying the absence was harmless was not enough in this case. The lawyer who represented the petitioner at the hearing did not provide evidence or firsthand statements from the petitioner, only mentioning a letter the petitioner had written earlier. The court raised concerns that the lawyer might not have properly consulted with the petitioner about not attending the hearing. Since the petitioner claimed he entered the plea without properly thinking it over and believed he had a valid defense, the case could not fall under rules that would let the court dismiss his request without consideration. The judges decided that the petitioner's right to a fair hearing had been violated because he was not there to fully participate and because his lawyer did not act effectively for him in this situation. Therefore, the court ruled that the case should go back to the district court to ensure the petitioner can have a complete hearing on his wish to withdraw his guilty plea.

F-2002-24

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-24, Tomas Mendiola Bernal appealed his conviction for maintaining a place for keeping or selling drugs and three counts of delivering and distributing cocaine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for maintaining a place for selling drugs and ordered a new trial for that charge, but affirmed the convictions and sentences for delivering and distributing cocaine. One member of the court disagreed with some parts of the decision.

F-2001-1170

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 3, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1170, Willie West King, Jr. appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation of a Child Under Sixteen Years Old. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Count I but reversed the conviction for Count II with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the length of the sentence for Count I, suggesting it should be modified to 20 years. Willie West King, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of two counts of lewd molestation after a trial in Texas County. The jury gave a punishment of 65 years for each count, and these sentences were to be served one after the other. King appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he claimed that the jury instruction on the crime had a serious mistake because it left out an important part that should have been included. However, the court found that even though this was a mistake, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial because other parts of the instructions were clear. Second, King argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the second count against him. The court agreed, saying that the evidence really showed an attempt rather than a completed act of lewdness. Therefore, they reversed that part of the conviction and said it should be dismissed. Third, King felt that the court should have told the jury they needed to have another witness to back up the victim's claim. The court disagreed, stating that the victim’s testimony was believable, and did not need another person to support it. Fourth, King thought that the jury should have been informed he would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found that this wasn’t necessary in this case because the law didn’t require it. They also decided that the prosecutor’s comments during the trial didn’t unfairly influence the jury’s decision. Fifth, King raised a concern about evidence from Texas being allowed in without proper proof. However, the court found that the evidence was correctly shown as valid. Lastly, King argued that all the mistakes in his trial together made it unfair for him. The court concluded that while there were some errors, they were not serious enough to have denied him a fair trial. In summary, the court upheld King’s conviction on Count I but found that Count II was not supported by enough evidence, so it was reversed and dismissed. One judge disagreed with the long sentence for Count I, believing it was too harsh and should be lowered to 20 years instead of 65 years.