Trial Court Error

F-2006-63

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-63, Beverly Michelle Moore appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Moore's sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Two judges dissented. To explain, Beverly Moore was found guilty of killing two-year-old Avery Snyder. Avery had severe head injuries that doctors said were caused by violent shaking, known as shaken baby syndrome. The trial focused on whether Moore or Todd Snyder, Avery's father, caused the injuries. Moore admitted to giving a confession to the police but later recanted, claiming she did not harm the child. During the trial, the jury determined that Moore was responsible for Avery's injuries, leading to her conviction. The jury decided on life imprisonment without parole. However, the decision included a mistake regarding jury instructions about the 85% Rule, which means that for certain crimes, a person must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. The court found it was necessary for the jury to understand this rule to make an informed sentencing decision. Moore's trial did not provide the jury with clear information about the 85% Rule, which was important after the jury inquired about it during their discussions. This omission was deemed a significant error that likely influenced the jury's decision to impose a harsher sentence. The court ultimately affirmed Moore's conviction for First Degree Murder but ordered that her sentence be modified to allow for the possibility of parole, reflecting the guidelines that should have been communicated to the jury during the sentencing phase. The dissenting judges believed the original sentence should not have been modified, arguing that the trial followed the laws that were in place at that time and no objections had been made during the trial.

Continue ReadingF-2006-63

F-2005-1094

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1094, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. #n dissented. Charles Arnold Fields was found guilty of delivering a controlled drug after having been convicted of felonies before. The jury gave him a sentence of 15 years to life in prison and a big fine. Fields did not like his representation during the trial, and he wanted to fire his lawyers. But the judge told him he could either continue with his lawyers or represent himself with them helping him. The case had three main issues. The first one was about whether Fields gave up his right to have a lawyer in a way that was clear and fair. The second issue questioned whether his long sentence was okay. The last issue looked at whether the judge made a mistake by not allowing Fields to challenge some evidence. The court found that Fields did not really ask to represent himself, and the judge did not explain to him the problems that could arise from not having a lawyer. Because of this, the court said he deserved a new trial. Since they decided on the first issue, they did not need to look into the other two issues. The court's final decision was to cancel the previous judgment and send the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1094

F-2005-901

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-901, Robert Glenn Davis appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for the robbery but modified the sentence for possession to five years. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentence for robbery should also be reduced. Davis was found guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County for robbing someone with a gun and for having a firearm when he was not allowed to do so because of past felony convictions. The jury decided on the punishments: thirty years for the robbery and ten years for the firearm possession, which meant he would serve those sentences one after the other. Davis's appeal included several points of error. He claimed that the prosecutor asked him wrong questions about staying silent after his arrest. The court found this was a mistake but also decided that it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. Another point he raised was about how a police officer's testimony was used, but because there was no complaint at the time, it didn't affect his fair trial rights. Davis also argued that he shouldn't have been convicted of both robbery and possession of a firearm, but the court found these were separate actions. He mentioned that the instructions on evidence were wrong, but again the court ruled that they were correct. Regarding a specific rule about how long someone has to serve, the court agreed that they should have mentioned it, leading to some change in sentencing. After looking at everything, the court decided that Davis's conviction for robbery would stay, but the time he had to serve for the firearm possession was cut down to five years. The sentences would still run one after the other. There were different opinions among the judges, with some agreeing entirely with the decision while another thought the robbery sentence should also be lesser.

Continue ReadingF-2005-901

F-2005-557

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-557, Larry Eugene Wright appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number while committing a felony, and obstructing an officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and obstructing an officer, but reversed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2005-557

F 2005-391

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-391, Steven Antonio Wooden appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Wooden's convictions, but modified his sentences from thirty years to twenty years each, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Two judges dissented regarding the reduction of the sentences. Mr. Wooden was found guilty in two separate robbery cases after a jury trial held in Oklahoma County. The trial took place on January 11th and 12th, 2005, and the jury set his punishment at thirty years for each robbery. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other, which made his total sentence more than fifty years. Mr. Wooden argued that his trial was unfair due to several errors, including the following points: 1. He believed that combining the two robbery cases into one trial hurt his chances for a fair trial. 2. He thought he was not tried by an unbiased judge, which he believed was a serious mistake and should grant him a new trial. 3. He said that evidence from phone calls he made from jail was unfair and did not help prove that he was guilty. 4. He argued that the police officer's comments about him being out of jail on the day of the robberies were misleading and not right. 5. He mentioned that it was wrong to bring up his silence after being arrested, which he said violated his rights. 6. He thought his jury should have been told about parole rules and how sentences are supposed to work. 7. Finally, he felt that all these problems together made his trial unfair. The court looked carefully at the whole case and all the arguments that Mr. Wooden made. They said that the joining of the two robbery cases did not harm his right to a fair trial. They noted that no significant prejudice from this decision had been proven. They also believed that the judge was not biased, but pointed out that the way the judge announced what would happen if Mr. Wooden chose a jury trial did not follow the rules properly. Specifically, the judge needed to think about whether Mr. Wooden should serve his sentences at the same time instead of one after the other. Though the court acknowledged that some errors occurred during the trial, they concluded that these mistakes did not change the outcome of the case significantly. They found the mistakes regarding the sentence structure were serious enough to modify Mr. Wooden's total prison time. However, they decided that the robbery convictions were correct and would not be changed. In summary, Mr. Wooden's convictions remained in place, but his total prison time was lessened and the sentences would now be served at the same time.

Continue ReadingF 2005-391

F-2004-1229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1229, Jesse Allen Cheshire appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Allen Cheshire was found guilty by a jury of two charges of Child Sexual Abuse in a case from Bryan County. The jury decided that he should serve eight years in prison for each charge, and these sentences would be served one after the other. Cheshire argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed the crimes. He believed that the evidence was inconsistent and didn't clearly show he was guilty. He claimed this meant his constitutional rights were violated. He also stated that his rights were infringed because two witnesses were allowed to share what the alleged victims said without those children testifying in court. According to the law, he should have been able to confront his accusers directly, which he argued did not happen. Cheshire claimed that the state’s witnesses unfairly supported the credibility of the children’s accusations against him. He also mentioned that a letter from a doctor supporting his defense was wrongly kept out of trial, while other evidence was accepted. After looking at all the ideas presented by Cheshire and the details of the case, the court found that the issue regarding hearsay—where the children’s statements were allowed without them being present—was a serious error. They concluded that this error was not harmless and could have affected the outcome of the trial. They noted that there was some confusion during the case, including the children initially naming someone else as the abuser before changing their statements. Because of this significant issue, the court reversed Cheshire's convictions and ordered a new trial to take place.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1229

F-2005-97

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-97, Dodson appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Wesley Dodson was found guilty by a jury in the district court of a serious crime against two victims. The judge sentenced him to serve a long time in prison, with each count requiring him to stay for fifty years. After Dodson's conviction, he appealed the decision, which means he asked a higher court to review the case to see if there were any mistakes. Dodson raised several important points about why he thought the trial was unfair. First, he believed he did not get a fair jury because one juror was biased and should have been removed. Second, he argued that the court allowed hearsay evidence about children that was not presented correctly and could make the jury think the victims were more credible than they were. Third, he claimed that there wasn’t enough solid evidence to prove he committed the crimes. Lastly, Dodson said that all these errors together made the trial unfair. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed with Dodson on some key points. They found that there was indeed a biased juror who should have been excused, which took away Dodson's right to have a fair trial. They also agreed that the trial court should have been more careful about the hearsay evidence related to the victims, and that a police officer made comments that suggested the victims were telling the truth when that should have been left for the jury to decide. However, the court thought that there was enough evidence to support the victims' claims, meaning the jury could have reasonably found Dodson guilty based on their testimonies. Since the court found serious issues with how the trial was handled, they decided that Dodson's convictions should be reversed, meaning he would not have to serve the prison sentences handed down from the first trial, and they ordered that a new trial should happen. In summary, the higher court said that Dodson did not receive a fair trial due to certain errors, so they cancelled the previous decision and said there should be another trial.

Continue ReadingF-2005-97

F-2005-620

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-620, Ryan Anthony Van Winkle appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and forcible oral sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon but affirmed the conviction for forcible oral sodomy. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the assault conviction. The case began when Van Winkle was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious crimes. The jury decided that he should spend five years in prison for the assault and eight years for the sodomy, with these sentences to be served one after the other. During the appeal, several issues were raised. One major question was whether Van Winkle could be punished for both crimes because they were part of the same event. Van Winkle argued that the assault was the same act that made the sodomy forcible, which means he shouldn’t be punished for both under the law. The court looked closely at the details of the case. It found that Van Winkle had threatened the victim with a knife and made her agree to the sodomy because she feared for her safety. They decided that the assault with the knife was not a separate crime from the sodomy since they were tied closely together in this incident. Because of this, the court reversed the conviction for the assault, ordering that charge to be dismissed. While addressing the other arguments made by Van Winkle in his appeal, such as claims about not having a fair trial, the court decided these didn’t require changes since they were mainly related to the assault conviction. In summary, the court kept the conviction for forcible oral sodomy but did not allow the assault charge to stand due to how closely related the two acts were. One judge disagreed with the decision to reverse the assault conviction, believing that both crimes were deserving of punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2005-620

F 2004-866

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-866, Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial in two of the three related cases, while affirming the conviction in the third case. One judge dissented. Ricky Dale Rawlins, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for offenses related to shooting at people, which included Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Shooting with Intent to Kill. The jury gave him a total of twelve years for the two Assault and Battery charges and twenty-five years for the shooting charge, which were to be served one after the other. Ricky raised several issues in his appeal. He argued that the trial court made mistakes, like not following the law to instruct the jury correctly on the charges. He claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to support his convictions and that he didn’t get good help from his lawyer. He also stated the prosecutor did wrong things during the trial and that some evidence shouldn't have been allowed. Additionally, he felt the instructions given to the jury about sentencing were confusing and that all the mistakes made during the trial added up to make it unfair for him. After looking closely at what Ricky said and the court records, the court agreed that he deserved a new trial for the Assault and Battery charges because the jury was wrongly instructed about the law. But for the Shooting with Intent to Kill charge, the court thought the evidence was enough to support that conviction, so they upheld it. The court decided that many of Ricky's claims about mistakes during the trial did not change the outcome for the Shooting charge, so it stayed as is. However, since there was a legal mistake about the Assault and Battery charges, those were thrown out, and he was ordered to be tried again. In conclusion, the final decision was to keep the conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill and to conduct new trials for the other two charges.

Continue ReadingF 2004-866

F-2005-440

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-440, Zachary Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Hudson was tried by a jury for First Degree Murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of First Degree Manslaughter. They recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The trial judge followed this recommendation when he sentenced Hudson. After the trial, Hudson raised several points of error in his appeal. He claimed he was not given a fair trial because he thought the court was too involved and was biased toward the State. However, the court found that the judge was simply ensuring that witnesses understood the questions and did not show any partiality. Hudson also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction for manslaughter, and he believed the jury instructions were incorrect. The court found evidence that Hudson fought with the person who died, left, returned, and then ran over that person with his car. This evidence led the court to believe that the jury could find Hudson guilty, as they might think he acted out of anger or passion rather than by accident. Hudson’s last point was about not having the jury instructed on the 85% Rule, which explains how much of a sentence must be served before someone can be eligible for parole. The court agreed that the jury needed this information and decided to modify Hudson's sentence from twenty years to fifteen years in prison while keeping the $10,000 fine. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence because they wanted to ensure that the jury had clear information about parole eligibility, which would help them make informed decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2005-440

F-2005-597

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-597, Keandre Lee Sanders appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences for the robbery and shooting charges. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of what happened: Keandre Lee Sanders was found guilty by a jury of three serious crimes. He was sentenced to a total of 60 years after the jury decided how long he should go to prison for each crime. He thought the trial went unfairly and wanted to change his sentence. He had three main reasons for his appeal: 1. He asked the judge to delay the trial because he found new evidence that might help him. His lawyer thought there was a witness who could help, but the judge said no to delaying. The court believed waiting wouldn’t help because the witness was not cooperating. The court looked at everything and decided the lawyer did their best, so they did not grant this appeal point. 2. He believed that the charge of having a gun should not count separately from the other two charges, arguing that they were connected. The court found that having the gun was a separate act from the robbery and the shooting, so they denied this appeal as well. 3. The last point he made was that the jury was not told he would have to serve a certain amount of time before he could be considered for parole. After some review, the court agreed that he should have been told this but decided it was not enough to change his convictions. They did, however, change his sentences, reducing them from fifteen years to twelve years for the robbery charge and from forty years to thirty years for the shooting charge. The sentence for the firearm possession remained the same. The final decision was that while the court agreed with the convictions, they made changes to the length of two sentences. The court issued its order to finalize the decision after they filed their ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2005-597

C-2005-311

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-311, Emily Burns appealed her conviction for robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and modify her sentence. One judge dissented. Emily Burns pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and false declaration of ownership in pawn. A judge sentenced her to 25 years in prison for robbery and five years for the other charge, with both sentences running at the same time. Burns later asked to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing her long sentence was unfair. The court looked at how the sentence was decided. They said when someone pleads guilty, the judge must consider all possible punishments. Burns claimed the judge had a policy of giving at least 25 years for armed robbery without looking at her specific case. This concerned the appellate court because it seemed the judge might not have thought about all the facts before sentencing. Burns used a fake gun during the robbery, and no one was really hurt. The court believed that sentencing her to 25 years for using a fake gun in a non-violent way was extreme given her background as a young mother with no prior criminal record. The appellate court decided to change Burns's punishment, reducing her sentence to 10 years in prison because the original sentence was too harsh. They affirmed her convictions but modified the length of her sentence. Burns also argued that she was denied a chance to have her sentence reviewed after a year, which is a right she has by law. However, the court said she was not denied this right because the judge just needed her to file a motion if she wanted a review. In the end, the court granted her request to modify her sentence and reaffirmed her convictions, while one judge believed that the original sentence should stand.

Continue ReadingC-2005-311

F 2004-1305

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1305, Anthony Joseph Frost appealed his conviction for Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the aggravated attempting to elude charge due to errors during the trial. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Frost faced a jury trial where he was found guilty of two charges. The jury decided on a punishment of 40 years for the first charge and 1 year with a $1,000 fine for the second charge. The sentences were set to be served at the same time. Frost appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court did not give the jury enough information about parole eligibility and that the court made a mistake by not redacting previous sentence information from his prior convictions. The court found that the trial court did not do anything wrong with the first claim because Frost did not raise an objection during the trial. However, the court agreed that there was a mistake in how previous sentences were presented to the jury. This information could have influenced the jury's decision on the punishment. The court decided to change Frost’s sentence for aggravated attempting to elude from 40 years to 25 years, while keeping the sentence for the drug paraphernalia charge the same. The judges all agreed on some parts of the decision, but one judge disagreed with changing Frost's sentence, believing that the jury should be fully informed about the defendant's history to make a fair decision.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1305

F-2004-825

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-825, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with firearms. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Craig LaFranz Taylor, was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Comanche County, where the jury sentenced him to life in prison after the conviction. The appellant argued that his rights were violated in several ways. He claimed that the jury received wrongful outside information about him being arrested for another charge, which he believed affected their decision on his sentence. He also argued that the identification of him as the robber was not reliable and that there were problems with how the identification was made. Furthermore, he mentioned that one juror saw him in handcuffs and leg irons, which he thought unfairly influenced the juror's opinion of him. Lastly, he felt that the prosecutor asked inappropriate questions during the trial that hurt his chances for a fair trial. The court reviewed all the information presented and decided to maintain the conviction. They believed that there were enough checks in place during the trial for the jury to evaluate the eyewitness testimony fairly. They also felt that the juror's brief view of the appellant in restraints was not enough to interfere with the trial, especially since the appellant did not mention this to his lawyer until after the trial was over. The defense raised concerns about the prosecutor’s questions, but the court noted that most of the objections were upheld, meaning the unfair questions did not significantly harm the appellant’s case. However, the court agreed that there were issues with how the jury handled sentencing. The jury's initial recommendation was not clear, and they had received outside information that affected their decision. Because of this, the court decided to change the life sentence to a shorter term of twenty years instead, allowing the appellant to have a fairer outcome in that regard. In the end, the decision confirmed that while the conviction stood, the punishment was adjusted to ensure fairness, leading to a modified sentence of twenty years of imprisonment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-825

F-2004-643

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-643, Earnest Alphonzo Lee appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence to fifteen years. One judge dissented. Earnest Alphonzo Lee was found guilty by a jury of Attempted First Degree Burglary. The jury believed he deserved to go to prison for twenty years, and the trial court agreed with their decision. Earnest felt this was unfair, so he appealed his case. In his appeal, Earnest raised several issues he thought were wrong during his trial. The first issue was about something called an “evidentiary harpoon.” This means that he thought the arresting officer made a comment that brought up Earnest’s right to stay silent after he was arrested. The court looked closely at this and decided it was not a big deal because there was a lot of strong evidence proving he was guilty, which made the officer’s comment not harmful. The second issue was about a juror named Barker that Earnest wanted removed from the jury, but the judge did not agree. The court said this did not cause any problems since Earnest’s lawyer could have removed the juror another way. For the third issue, Earnest believed that the judge did not explain the punishment ranges to the jury correctly. The court agreed and said the law was not followed properly when the jury decided on the punishment. So, they changed Earnest’s sentence to fifteen years. The fourth issue claimed the prosecutor did something wrong during the trial, but the court found that this did not affect the outcome of the trial since there was still a lot of strong evidence against Earnest. In the fifth issue, the court believed there was enough evidence for the jury to find Earnest guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the sixth issue was about whether all the errors together were so bad that Earnest did not get a fair trial. The court decided that the problems were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial. Overall, the court agreed that the trial had some mistakes but decided that the most important issue was the incorrect instructions about the punishment. They changed Earnest’s sentence to 15 years but said the rest of the trial was fair.

Continue ReadingF-2004-643

F-2004-332

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-332, Sheila Ann Sutton appealed her conviction for grand larceny and knowingly concealing stolen property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to petit larceny and reversed and dismissed the charge of concealing stolen property. One judge dissented. Sutton was accused of stealing electronic items, including DVD players, with friends. The jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to five years in prison for grand larceny and four years for concealing stolen property, with the sentences running at the same time. During her appeal, Sutton argued several points. She claimed that simply being in a car with stolen shoes did not mean she was hiding them. The court agreed that the evidence did not show she attempted to conceal the shoes and reversed the charge for that reason. Sutton also argued that she only took property worth less than $500, which should be classified as petit larceny, not grand larceny. The evidence showed that she took one DVD player worth $487, and the other players taken by her companions did not change that. The court agreed and changed her conviction to petit larceny. Additionally, Sutton claimed that the jury was not properly instructed about the law surrounding the charges against her. The court found that the instructions were lacking and noted that without proper guidance, the jury might have struggled to understand how to reach their decision on grand larceny. Sutton also pointed out that there was an instruction about flight, but the circumstances didn't support it, meaning it should not have been mentioned during the trial. The court acknowledged this, saying that giving such an instruction without proper context was wrong. After reviewing all of Sutton's claims, the court modified her conviction to petit larceny and changed her sentence to two years in prison. They dismissed the second charge. The dissenting opinion argued that there was enough evidence to support the original conviction and that the jury understood what happened during the events in question. In summary, the court modified Sutton's conviction and sentence due to errors in the trial process, particularly related to jury instructions, while the dissenting judge believed the jury's original decision was justified.

Continue ReadingF-2004-332

F-2003-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1261, Ronnie Odell Gargus appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation, five counts of Sodomy, and Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gargus' convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case involved a jury trial where Gargus was found guilty of serious sexual offenses against a child. The jury decided on lengthy prison sentences for each count, totaling a significant amount of time in prison. Gargus raised two main points in his appeal. First, he argued that he should have been allowed to ask the State's expert witness about any bias in his testimony against Gargus. The court acknowledged that usually, a witness cannot be questioned about their past arrests if there was no conviction. However, the court agreed that there are times when it is important to explore a witness’s potential bias, especially if the witness has pending criminal issues. Despite this, the court found that excluding the questioning about the expert's bias did not change the outcome of the case since there was also strong evidence against Gargus, including the child’s own credible testimony. Second, Gargus claimed he was not properly informed before the court ordered him to pay restitution to the victim. The court noted that Gargus did not raise this issue during the trial. However, they agreed that the amount of restitution was not clearly supported by evidence, and that needed to be corrected. The court ordered a new hearing to determine the correct amount that Gargus should pay. Overall, the court upheld the convictions and long sentences but recognized that some legal issues concerning restitution needed further attention. They will have a new hearing to ensure the restitution amount is fair and based on proper evidence.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1261

F 2003-196

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.

Continue ReadingF 2003-196

F-2003-633

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-633, John Edward Schoonover appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. John Edward Schoonover was originally tried and found guilty of Child Abuse Murder, but that conviction was overturned. In this retrial, he was convicted of Accessory After the Fact to Murder and sentenced to seven years in prison and a fine. Schoonover raised several arguments on appeal, claiming his conviction should be overturned due to various errors that occurred during the trial. The court found that Schoonover's conviction was not valid for two main reasons. First, the actions he took to help after the injury occurred were done before the victim died. According to the law, to be guilty of being an accessory after the fact, the person must knowingly help the person who committed a crime after the crime has been completed, which means after the victim has died in this case. Since the victim did not die until later, the court argued that the conviction did not hold. Secondly, Schoonover's right to due process was violated. He had no notice that he would have to defend against the charge of Accessory After the Fact to Murder. The information provided to him before the trial did not include this specific charge. The court decided that because Schoonover was unaware of this potential charge, it would be unfair to convict him based on it. The court ruled that since these two significant issues were present, Schoonover's conviction was reversed, and he would receive a new trial to ensure a fair process. The remaining arguments he raised were not addressed because the main reasons for reversing the conviction were decisive.

Continue ReadingF-2003-633

M-2002-1195

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2002-1195, Anita Shank appealed her conviction for Driving Under the Influence, Transporting an Open Container of Beer, and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for Transporting an Open Container and Obstructing an Officer, but modified her Driving Under the Influence conviction to Driving While Impaired and remanded the case for sentence modification. One judge dissented. Anita Shank was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, transporting open containers of beer, and obstructing an officer during her trial. She received a 90-day sentence for driving under the influence and fines for the other two charges. Shank contested her convictions on several grounds, claiming the evidence was insufficient and arguing errors regarding jury instructions and sentencing. During the trial, it was noted that Shank was stopped by a sheriff's deputy while she was driving and had an open container of beer in her car. The deputy observed signs of intoxication, like bloodshot eyes. Shank admitted to drinking two beers but refused to take a breathalyzer test. When questioned about the whereabouts of her child, she lied and was uncooperative. The court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction for driving under the influence but acknowledged that the jury should have been instructed on the possibility of a lesser offense—Driving While Impaired. The state agreed that not instructing on this was an error, although they deemed it harmless. Additionally, Shank argued the trial court should have considered a suspended sentence for her. The record did not show that the court completely ignored this request, but the judge did express a need for proof of her willingness to enter treatment for alcohol issues. After the appeal, it was revealed that Shank completed the treatment program, prompting the court to order the lower court to consider this when evaluating her suspended sentence request. The court upheld the obstruction conviction, stating that her deliberate lies and refusal to cooperate with the deputy interfered with the execution of his duties, which constitutes sufficient grounds for the charge. In conclusion, while Shank's obstruction of an officer and open container convictions were affirmed, her DUI was modified to a lesser charge of DWI, and the court directed the district court to revisit her request for a suspended sentence.

Continue ReadingM-2002-1195

F 2002-1540

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1540, Steven Edward Noble appealed his conviction for aggravated manufacturing of methamphetamine, possession of a precursor substance, and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and modify his conviction for aggravated manufacturing to manufacturing less than fifty grams of methamphetamine, reducing the sentence to twenty-five years and a $50,000 fine. The sentence for possession of a firearm was modified to twenty years. However, the conviction for possession of a precursor substance was affirmed.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1540

F-2002-1546

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1546, David Jewel Newton appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. David Jewel Newton was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County and was given a very long sentence of 458 years in prison. He said he did not get a fair trial because there were some biased jurors. Mr. Newton’s lawyer did not properly challenge a juror who was a police officer and should not have served on the jury. The court agreed that this was a mistake and that Mr. Newton's lawyer did not do his job well in defending him. Since the jury should have been fair, the court decided that Mr. Newton deserves a new trial where he can be tried by a new set of jurors who are fair and not biased. The dissenting opinion said that the jurors who were chosen in the trial were impartial and that there was no reason to order a new trial because the rules about jurors were being misunderstood.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1546

F-2002-537

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-537, Andre Lasuan Marshall appealed his conviction for several offenses including shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the charges and affirm the others. One judge dissented. The case began when Marshall was charged with multiple counts, including three counts of shooting with intent to kill, one count of entering a building with unlawful intent, and one count of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. A jury found him guilty on most counts after the trial. He received sentences that the jury recommended, which were to be served at the same time, except for one count. Marshall raised several points for appeal. He argued that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he shot someone with the intent to kill. He also said that the jury should not have been instructed on a lesser charge, that his convictions for possessing a firearm and shooting someone should not count separately, and that some police testimony about gang colors was unfair to him. Marshall believed that the evidence didn’t support one of the building charges and that the jury wasn't given all the necessary instructions. He mentioned that there were problems with what the prosecutor said during the trial and that all of these issues together should lead to his convictions being reversed or his sentences being changed. After reviewing everything, the court agreed some points raised were valid. They decided that Marshall did run from the scene after the shooting and that the evidence showed he was likely the shooter. They did find, however, that it was a mistake to instruct the jury about the lesser charge without a request from the state. Therefore, they reversed that particular conviction related to the shooting but upheld the others. The court concluded that while they were reversing one conviction, the remaining charges were upheld, and Marshall would continue serving his other sentences. One judge disagreed with how the reversal was handled, believing that if a new trial was warranted, it shouldn’t just overturn the charge outright but should instead allow for reconsideration by a jury. So, that’s a summary of the case and what the court decided.

Continue ReadingF-2002-537

F 2002-772

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-772, Joseph Alexander Simrak appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Firearm after a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was arrested. He was found with methamphetamine and a firearm, which he challenged in court, arguing that the arrest was not lawful. The appellant claimed that because his arrest was unlawful, all the evidence found during the arrest should not have been used against him in court. The court agreed with the appellant and found that the information used to justify his arrest was not reliable. Therefore, the evidence from the unlawful arrest should not have been included in the trial. The jury had previously decided that the appellant should go to prison for ten years for each charge, and those sentences were to be served one after the other. However, since the court found the arrest illegal, both convictions were reversed. The remaining issues raised by the appellant were not considered because the ruling on the arrest was significant enough to change the outcome of the case. Ultimately, the court stated that the appellant would not be punished for these convictions due to the way the evidence was obtained.

Continue ReadingF 2002-772

F-2001-1372

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1372, #Welch appealed his conviction for #First Degree Burglary and Peeping Tom. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but vacate the fine imposed. #No one dissented. Tony Wayne Welch was found guilty of breaking and entering a building and also for being a Peeping Tom. The court sentenced him to thirty years in prison for burglary and one year in jail for the Peeping Tom charge, which would be served at the same time. Welch challenged several things about his trial. First, he said the jury should have been told they could consider a lesser charge of breaking and entering, but the court said that was not appropriate. Then, he argued that the prosecution misled the jury, but the court disagreed, stating that the prosecution's remarks did not unfairly influence the jury. Welch also claimed his lawyer did not represent him well, but the court found no evidence that this hurt his case. The court did determine, however, that there was a mistake in how the punishment for Peeping Tom was explained to the jury, which was considered a serious error. Since Welch had already served his jail time since the trial, there wasn’t much that could be done about it. The court decided to take away the $500 fine from the Peeping Tom charge. Lastly, the court found that it was not required to inform the jury about how much time Welch would have to serve before he could be released on parole. They decided that his overall sentence was fair, and nothing about the trial significantly harmed his chances for a fair outcome. In the end, the court upheld the verdict of the jury but removed the fine, stating that despite some issues during the trial, they did not impact the fairness of his conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1372