In OCCA case No. F-2010-307, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the sentence for re-sentencing. One judge dissented, suggesting a modification of the sentence to life imprisonment instead of life without the possibility of parole.
In OCCA case No. J-2011-514, J.F. appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts With a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the motion for certification as a juvenile. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged J.F. on March 7, 2011, for actions that allegedly happened when he was 15 years old. J.F. filed a motion to be treated as a juvenile instead of facing adult charges. A hearing was held where evidence was presented. The court had a specialist provide testimony, and several documents were submitted to support J.F.'s request for juvenile status. The State argued that the court should not have allowed J.F. to be certified as a juvenile, stating that he had not shown enough proof. The court, however, did not find any mistakes in the decisions made by the trial judge and agreed that J.F. should be treated as a juvenile. In the end, the court upheld the earlier decision, allowing J.F. to proceed in the juvenile system.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-208, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision made by a Special Judge regarding the suppression of evidence connected to Shea Brandon Seals. In an unpublished decision, the court upheld the Special Judge's ruling, agreeing that there was not enough reason to stop Seals' vehicle. The court found that the evidence supported the decision that Seals did not break any traffic laws, and thus, the law enforcement officer did not have a valid reason to stop him. The State also tried to argue that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop, but this argument was presented for the first time during the appeal, so the court did not consider it. The decision to deny the State's appeal was supported by competent evidence and adhered to legal standards. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-51, Wilkes appealed his conviction for second-degree rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition, allowing Wilkes to withdraw his plea. One judge dissented. Darren Casey Wilkes had originally entered a no contest plea to second-degree rape but later sought to change that plea after not being accepted into a special program meant for young adults. This program was key to his decision to plead no contest. When he was denied entry into that program, he believed he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because the conditions he agreed to were not fulfilled. The court reviewed the case and found that Wilkes’s plea was based on an agreement that included eligibility for the Delayed Sentencing Program. The problem arose from incorrect paperwork that included charges that were supposed to be dropped. Since this error affected Wilkes's eligibility and the terms of his plea, the court determined that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. Throughout the process, it was clear that Wilkes did not admit guilt but entered his plea with the expectation of receiving certain benefits. Instead of receiving those benefits, he was sentenced to ten years in prison without the opportunity to participate in the program. The court concluded that the right remedy was to allow Wilkes to withdraw his plea and return to where he was before his plea was entered.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1113, Rodney Gene Cullins appealed his conviction for several drug-related crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his fine but otherwise affirmed the trial court's judgment and denied his request to withdraw his guilty pleas. One judge dissented. Rodney Cullins was convicted of multiple felonies related to drugs, including manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. He entered a plea agreement that included participating in a Drug Court program, which he did not successfully complete, leading the state to seek his removal from the program. As a result, he was sentenced to life in prison and given various fines. Cullins later tried to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming double jeopardy (being punished for the same crime twice), receiving incorrect information about his sentencing, and arguing that his sentences were too harsh. However, the court found that he had not raised some of these issues during his trial, making it difficult for them to review his case fully. For one issue regarding a fine that was too high, the court agreed and lowered the fine on one of his charges from $50,000 to $10,000. The court maintained that all other aspects of his sentence would remain as originally imposed. In summary, while Cullins had some success in reducing his fines, the bulk of his appeal was not successful, and his prison terms remained intact.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-466, William Michael DeMoss appealed his conviction for three Counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill and one Count of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but vacated the fines associated with each count. One judge dissented. William Michael DeMoss was found guilty of serious crimes, including trying to kill people and attacking someone with a weapon. The jury decided he should go to prison for a long time and also pay money as fines. DeMoss didn’t think the trial was fair and said there were many mistakes made. He argued that there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty, that he couldn’t hear well during the trial, and that he should have had help from experts to prove he had problems. The court looked closely at what DeMoss said and also reviewed all the evidence. They decided that there was enough proof to show that DeMoss did commit the crimes. The court didn’t think his defense attorney did anything wrong to hurt DeMoss's case and that the decisions made during the trial were fair. They also found out that even though there were some mistakes, such as telling the jury they had to give fines when they really didn’t have to, it didn’t change the outcome of the trial. In the end, they agreed with the jury’s decision but took away the fines because it wasn’t right for the jury to have to give them. This means he still has to serve a long prison sentence, but he won't have to pay those extra fines. The court decided that everything else about the trial was okay, and DeMoss's appeal was mostly denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-2, Clinton Riley Potts appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. No one dissented. Clinton Riley Potts was found guilty by a jury of murdering Gregory Clark. This happened after Potts learned that Clark was dating his girlfriend. The court sentenced Potts to life in prison without the chance for parole. Potts believed he did not have a fair trial. He thought that the prosecutor did not tell his lawyer important information about a witness. This information could have helped show that the witness was not telling the truth and also could have helped Potts’s case. He also argued that his own lawyer did not do enough to prepare for the trial, did not look into the case properly, and did not bring in important witnesses. After Potts appealed, an evidentiary hearing was held. During this hearing, it was shown that Potts’s lawyer did not investigate the case as well as he should have. They found that the prosecutor had information about a key witness who had received special treatment for testifying at Potts's trial, but they did not share this information with Potts's lawyer. The judge who looked at the evidence agreed that Potts did not receive a fair trial. This finding was important because the judge had also been the one who oversaw Potts's original trial, making him well aware of how the mistakes may have affected the trial's outcome. The court decided that Potts's arguments about unfairness were valid. Since this was the case, they reversed the initial verdict and said that Potts should have a new trial. The decision meant that the earlier trial was not valid anymore, and the court ordered that Potts would get another chance to present his case in a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-267, James Lyman Mahaffey appealed his conviction for Assault & Battery with a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, and Possession of Firearm After Conviction. In a published decision, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Mahaffey was accused and found guilty of serious crimes against his wife, including assault and kidnapping. The trial took place in the District Court of Grady County. After the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him to life in prison for the assault, 10 years for the kidnapping, and 6 years for possession of a firearm, all lined up to be served one after the other, or consecutively. Mahaffey asked to represent himself during the trial, which means he wanted to defend himself without a lawyer. He argued that the court should not have allowed him to do this because he didn't clearly understand the risks involved in self-representation. However, the court decided that he was competent to represent himself and had made an informed decision. They had warned him that representing himself could be risky and could lead to mistakes that might change the outcome of the trial. During the trial, Mahaffey raised some claims against the prosecutor's behavior. He argued that the prosecutor acted unfairly by making comments that may have influenced the jury. For instance, Mahaffey claimed the prosecutor misrepresented the meaning of a life sentence and made other comments that distracted from the trial's fairness. However, the court concluded that while there were some mistakes made by the prosecutor, they were not serious enough to change the outcome of the case concerning his guilt. Despite this, the court found that the conduct during sentencing raised concerns about the fairness of the sentencing itself. The jury specifically asked about how the sentences would be served, indicating they were worried about the total time Mahaffey would spend in prison. Because of this, although Mahaffey’s convictions were upheld, the court changed the sentences to allow them to be served concurrently, meaning all the prison time would be served at the same time rather than one after the other. Ultimately, the court's decision meant Mahaffey would still have to serve his time, but the way his sentences were structured was altered to be less severe. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the official documents to reflect that change in sentencing.
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. F-2009-525, Sparks appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug, and Unlawful Removal of a Dead Body. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for Counts 2 and 3 but reversed and remanded Count 1, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding Count 1. The case involved Nathan David Sparks, who was tried and found guilty in Osage County. The jury decided that he should spend ten years in prison for Second Degree Murder, along with a fine for delivering a controlled substance and a year in county jail for improperly handling a dead body. The trial judge followed the jury's recommendations. The appeal focused on several issues, including whether there was enough evidence to support a conviction for Second Degree Murder. During the trial, the prosecution argued that Sparks gave methamphetamine to a woman who later died from it, claiming they had a close relationship and that he knew about her health issues. Sparks argued that the evidence did not strongly support the idea that his actions were extremely dangerous. The court reviewed prior cases and determined that not every case of delivering drugs resulting in death is automatically Second Degree Murder. They explained that for a murder charge to stick, the actions must show a clear disregard for life. They found that in Sparks' case, while he knew the victim had health problems, there wasn't enough evidence to prove his actions were dangerously reckless enough to warrant a murder conviction. Each of Sparks' other issues was also reviewed. They found some testimony was not directly related to the case, but since the evidence for Counts 2 and 3 was strong, it did not change the outcome. They determined that there was no misconduct during the trial and that Sparks had adequate legal representation. In summary, the court upheld Sparks' convictions for the drug delivery and body removal but did not find strong enough evidence for the murder charge, leading to its dismissal. One judge disagreed, believing the evidence was sufficient to uphold the murder charge due to Sparks' knowledge of the victim's health issues.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.
In OCCA Case No. F-2009-404, Kassie Lakei Bills appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Kassie Lakei Bills was found guilty of murder after a jury trial in Oklahoma County. The jury sentenced her to Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole. Bills raised several complaints about how the trial was conducted. She argued that the trial court, which is responsible for making sure the trial runs smoothly, acted improperly during jury selection (called voir dire) by making comments that could have influenced the jurors. She said the court restricted her ability to question potential jurors about an important issue in her case: insanity. Further, Bills claimed that the trial court did not allow the jury to consider lesser offenses that might have been more appropriate, and that it should not have allowed certain evidence that was not relevant to the case. She felt her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, and there were too many mistakes made during the trial that affected her right to a fair trial. One key issue was the trial judge’s comments during jury selection. The judge told jurors that they should come to a decision quickly and warned them against being hard-headed. Bills argued that these comments pressured jurors to reach a verdict even if they had honest disagreements about the evidence. The court pointed out that such comments could be seen as coercive, leading to a situation where jurors would not feel free to express their true opinions. The court agreed with Bills that the trial judge’s comments were improper and could have influenced the jury's actions unfairly, which led to the decision to reverse her conviction and order a new trial. Since the case was sent back for a new trial, the court did not need to discuss the other complaints Bills raised about her trial or her request for a hearing regarding her lawyer's performance. In conclusion, Bills' conviction was overturned, and she was granted a new beginning in court, where she may have a chance to present her case fairly.
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. F-2009-149, Kenneth Clark Knox appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the three years of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. The case began when Kenneth Knox was tried by a jury and found guilty of Sexual Battery after having previously been convicted of more than two felonies. The jury recommended a punishment of four years in prison, which the trial court imposed, along with three years of supervision after prison. Knox appealed for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence presented by the State was not strong enough to prove that he committed sexual battery. He believed that the conviction should be overturned and the charges dismissed. However, the court found that, when looking at the evidence favorably for the State, there was enough proof for a reasonable jury to conclude that Knox touched the victim inappropriately. Second, Knox claimed that the law regarding post-imprisonment supervision was not in effect when he committed the crime, so the three years of supervision imposed by the court should be canceled. The court agreed, explaining that the law was only effective after the crime took place, meaning Knox should not have been sentenced to post-prison supervision under that law. Lastly, Knox suggested that if the court did not agree with his other points, they should fix the written judgment to match what the judge said during sentencing. The court decided that they would vacate the supervision requirement and instructed the lower court to correct the judgment to show that Knox's sentence was only four years in prison. In conclusion, while Knox's conviction remained, the court removed the extra three years of supervision from his sentence. The case has been sent back to the lower court to make the necessary changes to the judgment.
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. C-2011-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic assault and battery by strangulation and threatening to perform an act of violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for the second count but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the first count. One judge dissented. James Duane Dorsey, Jr. entered a guilty plea for domestic assault and battery and no contest for threatening to perform an act of violence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, which was suspended, and 90 days in county jail for the first count. For the second count, he received a suspended one-year jail sentence, to run at the same time as the first count. Dorsey later tried to withdraw his pleas, but the trial court did not allow it. In his appeal, Dorsey argued two main points. First, he claimed his plea for the first charge was not valid because the court did not show enough facts to justify the plea. Second, he said the sentence for the second count was too long and needed to be changed. The court looked carefully at the entire case record before making a decision. They found that for the first point, Dorsey did not mention the lack of facts during his earlier motions, which means it was not properly brought up in his appeal. The court determined that, under their rules, they could only check for serious mistakes, not just any errors. They confirmed that Dorsey's pleas were made knowingly and that the court had the right to accept them. Dorsey had admitted to the crime of strangulation during his hearing, and the state had evidence to support the charge of threatening violence. For the second point, the court agreed with Dorsey that his sentence for the second count was too long. They noted that the maximum sentence for that misdemeanor should be six months. Therefore, they adjusted the sentence down to six months, but still suspended it. Overall, the court accepted Dorsey’s pleas and affirmed his conviction for the first count. However, they changed his sentence for the second count to fit within legal limits. One judge disagreed with how the court reviewed the first point but agreed with the rest of the decision.
In OCCA case No. J-2010-839, M.D.M. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's denial of M.D.M.'s request for juvenile certification, but reversed the order allowing the State to sentence him as an adult. M.D.M. dissented. M.D.M. was charged as a Youthful Offender and requested to be treated as a juvenile instead. The trial court denied his motion, stating that he could be rehabilitated and that the public would be safe if he was treated as a Youthful Offender. The court's decision was based on facts and evidence presented during the hearing. On appeal, M.D.M. argued that the trial court made several mistakes in denying his request. He believed the written order did not match what was discussed in court and that he was not given a fair chance for rehabilitation while being treated as a Youthful Offender. The court ruled that the trial court's initial decision was reasonable and did not abuse its discretion in treating M.D.M. as a Youthful Offender. However, the court also found that the written order mistakenly stated that M.D.M. should be sentenced as an adult. The court clarified that M.D.M. should be treated as a Youthful Offender if convicted. The decision included guidance for the trial court to ensure that M.D.M.'s case is handled appropriately moving forward.
In OCCA case No. J-2010-0788, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that imposed an adult sentence and remand the case for sentencing as a Youthful Offender if the appellant is convicted. One judge dissented. The appellant, who was born on March 12, 1994, faced charges in the District Court of Muskogee County where he was labeled a Youthful Offender. A motion was filed by the State for an adult sentence, while the appellant sought to be treated as a juvenile. The court held a hearing, and the judge denied the appellant's request to be treated as a juvenile. The same judge also granted the State's request for an adult sentence. The appellant raised three main arguments on appeal. First, he claimed the written order for the adult sentence did not match what the judge said during the hearing. Second, he argued that the trial court did not show clear and convincing evidence to justify an adult sentence. Third, he said it was wrong for the court to deny his request to be treated as a juvenile. According to the law, to punish someone as an adult, the court must find strong evidence that the individual could not adequately be rehabilitated or that the public would be at risk. The court found that the trial judge did not make the necessary findings to support an adult sentence and actually believed the appellant could complete rehabilitation and that public safety would not be compromised. Therefore, the court agreed with the appellant that the decision to treat him as an adult was wrong, thus reversing that part of the judgment. However, regarding the second argument about treating him as a juvenile, the court disagreed. The judges felt the trial judge had enough reasons to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender instead of a juvenile. In conclusion, while the order for an adult sentence was reversed, the court confirmed that the decision to treat the appellant as a Youthful Offender was appropriate. The case was sent back to the lower court to proceed with sentencing as a Youthful Offender if he is found guilty.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-774, John Calvin Winrow, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug With Intent to Distribute (Cocaine) and Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Winrow's convictions but remand the case to the district court for a ruling on whether his sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. One judge dissented regarding the remand for sentencing.
In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-210, Eric Anthony Damon appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his petition and remand the case for a new hearing, allowing Damon to appoint new counsel. One member of the court dissented. Eric Anthony Damon faced serious charges, and he decided to enter a guilty plea without fully understanding all the details. After entering the plea, he felt that his defense lawyer did not help him properly, especially during the trial. He thought this was unfair and wrote to ask the court if he could change his plea. The court discussed whether Damon should get a new lawyer to help him withdraw his guilty plea. When someone says their lawyer didn’t help them well, the law usually says they should have a different lawyer to make sure everything is alright. The court realized that it can be really tricky when the same lawyer is trying to help with the plea withdrawal while being accused of not doing a good job. Damon had reasons to believe his plea wasn’t fair. During the trial, he had trouble with getting some witnesses to show up. He felt forced to plead guilty since his lawyer could not call certain key witnesses who might have helped him. The court didn’t want to decide if his plea was valid right away. Instead, they thought it would be best to let Damon have a new lawyer represent him in this important matter. In summary, the court agreed with Damon and said he should have a chance to explain his situation better with new legal support. They ordered this to be done and made sure Damon had the right to defend himself with a lawyer who could deal with his concerns about his earlier representation.
In OCCA case No. M 2009-1064, Jesse Douglas Stein appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse- Assault and Battery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand the matter for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jesse Douglas Stein was charged with domestic abuse and had a trial without a jury. He was found guilty and got a sentence that included some jail time and a fine. However, Jesse claimed that he did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial, which is really important. The court found that there was not enough proof that he made this choice in a clear and smart way. During the appeal, the State tried to add more information to the case, but the court decided that this new information did not prove that Jesse had given up his right to a jury trial the right way. Because of this mistake, the court said that they would send the case back for a new trial where Jesse could have a jury. The judges agreed that they needed to reverse the earlier decision because of the issues with the jury trial waiver. They did not need to look at other reasons Jesse gave for appealing since they already decided to reverse the decision and start fresh. In summary, Jesse's conviction was overturned, and he was given another chance for a trial with a jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-434, Dusty Ray McGee appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Dusty Ray McGee was found guilty of murdering a homeless man named John Seeley after a brutal attack. The attack happened when McGee and others returned to an abandoned apartment complex where Seeley was staying. They confronted him because they were stealing metal from the site. During this attack, McGee, along with his accomplices, kicked and hit Seeley multiple times with different objects. After the assault, they took pictures of the injured Seeley, who was still alive at that time. McGee was arrested a few days later and admitted to being part of the attack but claimed he didn't intend to kill Seeley. He mentioned that he wanted to call an ambulance afterward but was threatened by one of his accomplices. During McGee's trial, there were several issues. The jury asked many questions that showed they were confused about what made a crime first or second-degree murder and how sentencing worked. The judge didn’t handle these questions properly and didn’t bring the jurors back to discuss their worries in front of everyone. This made it hard for the jury to understand everything they needed to know to make a fair decision. The court acknowledged that the improper handling of the jury's questions likely impacted McGee's rights to a fair trial. Because of these errors, the court reversed McGee's conviction and ordered a new trial, suggesting that the previous trial did not follow the required legal procedures properly.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-177, Jesse James Stout appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child and exhibition of obscene materials to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Jesse James Stout was found guilty by a jury of eight counts of sexual abuse of a child and three counts of exhibiting obscene materials to a minor. He received a total sentence of many years in prison for these convictions. The sentences for some counts were served one after another, which is called consecutive sentencing. Stout raised several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial court should have let him stop talking to the police when he asked for a lawyer. However, the court determined that his request was not clear enough, and since he had not been charged with the crimes at that time, his rights had not been violated. Second, he argued that having eight counts of sexual abuse was wrong when it should have been fewer counts. But the court found that the State had clearly explained all the charges, and the jury was told to look at each claim separately. Third, Stout contended that the trial court made a mistake by changing the charges at the end of the trial. The court allowed the State to change the information for the three counts of showing obscene materials. The trial court said this change would not hurt Stout's defense because the new charge carried a lesser sentence. However, the court found that this amendment was unfair and hurt Stout’s ability to defend himself properly because it changed the nature of what he was being charged with. As a result of these findings, the court affirmed the convictions related to the eight counts of sexual abuse, but reversed the convictions for the three counts of exhibiting obscene materials and ordered a new trial for those counts. Some judges agreed with the decisions while one judge disagreed with the reversal of the three counts.