Trial Court

F-2014-478

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-478, David Glen Heard appealed his conviction for two counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. David Glen Heard was found guilty of two counts of Lewd Molestation after being tried by a jury in Tulsa County. The charges stemmed from an incident on June 15, 2006, when Heard was observed behaving inappropriately towards two young girls at a Walmart store. He followed them around the store and attempted to look under their dresses. Witnesses reported his unsettling behavior, and he was later found with a pornographic magazine in his car and identified as a registered sex offender. At the time of the incident, he was on probation for previous sex-related offenses against children. During the trial, testimonies from various witnesses were presented, including a woman who testified about a similar incident involving Heard from years prior. Evidence was admitted under the law to show motive and absence of mistake, which supported the prosecution's case against him. Heard raised several arguments during his appeal, including claims that the statute he was convicted under was vague, the admission of other testimonies was inappropriate, and errors in jury instructions and the failure of his counsel to object to certain evidence. The court found that the law did not provide for a vagueness claim since Heard's actions clearly violated the statute in question. The admission of prior testimonies was ruled permissible as relevant to the case. The trial court’s instructions were also deemed not harmful to the verdict. However, the court recognized an error when ordering post-imprisonment supervision, as it was not authorized for the crimes Heard committed at the time. Thus, while his conviction was confirmed, the order for post-imprisonment supervision was vacated. Ultimately, Heard’s two twenty-year sentences were upheld due to the nature of his actions and background as a repeat offender.

Continue ReadingF-2014-478

F-2005-366

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-366, Timothy Purcell Teafatiller appealed his conviction for Possession of Concealed Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Teafatiller was found guilty by a jury for having a small amount of methamphetamine that was discovered in his wallet. He was sentenced to six years in prison. He raised seven main points in his appeal. The court mainly focused on one significant issue: the destruction of the evidence against him, which Teafatiller argued violated his rights. The drugs were received by a state bureau for testing and then sent back to the sheriff’s office for destruction without informing Teafatiller or his lawyer. This meant that Teafatiller could not have the chance to test the evidence that was being used against him. The court found that this action went against laws meant to protect the rights of individuals and ensure a fair trial. The judges concluded that the destruction of the evidence constituted a serious violation of Teafatiller's rights. While in previous similar cases, not having evidence might not have led to a reversible error, in this situation, the specific evidence that formed the basis of the charges was completely destroyed. Because there was no opportunity for Teafatiller to review or challenge the evidence, the court decided the only fair action was to reverse the conviction. As a result, the court mandated that the case be sent back for new proceedings where Teafatiller would have the chance to examine the evidence against him, ensuring his rights were upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2005-366

F-2004-146

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-146

F-2004-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.

Continue ReadingF-2004-767

RE 2005-0315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0315, #Matthews appealed his conviction for #Burglary. In a (published) decision, the court decided #to vacate the two-year sentence imposed in CF-1999-365, affirm the acceleration of the deferred sentence in CF-2003-14, and affirm the termination from Drug Court. #None dissented. Kevin Paul Matthews got into trouble with the law a while back. He pled no contest to a charge for running a roadblock and was given a sentence where he didn’t have to spend much time in prison right away. Instead, he was supposed to follow certain rules and help the community. However, he later messed up by not completing his required community service. Then, he got into even more trouble and pleaded guilty to burglary, agreeing to join a special program called Drug Court instead of going straight to prison. This program was meant to help him get better. But after some time, the State said he wasn’t following the rules and asked the judge to send him to prison instead. The judge agreed and decided Matthews needed to go to prison for more time, ruling that any previous time he served didn’t count towards his new sentence. Matthews felt that the judge made mistakes and that he shouldn't have been punished as harshly as he was. Matthews brought his case to a higher court, saying the judge didn't have the right to put him back in prison for the earlier offense because too much time had passed. He also said the judge shouldn’t have made him wait so long without setting an end date to his drug treatment program. Ultimately, the higher court agreed that the judge had made an error in punishing Matthews without accounting for the time he had already served. However, they kept the part where Matthews had to go to prison for his burglary charge because he had failed to follow the rules of the Drug Court. They decided to send the case back to the lower court for more review about what should happen next. So, in the end, Matthews got relief on some of his issues, but not all, showing that while he had some rights, he still needed to take responsibility for his actions.

Continue ReadingRE 2005-0315

F-2004-1261

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1261, Jonathan Dwight Harjo appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to ten years in prison. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1261

F-2005-314

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-314, the appellant appealed his conviction for the Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the conviction to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine. One judge dissented. Here’s a summary of the case: Morton D. Hayner was found guilty of making methamphetamine in a trial. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and imposed a $50,000 fine. Hayner argued that the evidence was not enough to prove he manufactured meth, he should have been given chances for lesser charges, and that the fine was too high for him since he didn't have much money. The court looked carefully at the evidence and agreed with Hayner on the first point. They said he was actually trying to manufacture meth but had not finished the process when the police arrived. So, they changed his conviction from manufacturing to attempting to manufacture. On the second point, the court found that Hayner was not denied the chance to consider lesser charges. For the third point, the court decided the fine was appropriate because it matched the seriousness of the crime. In conclusion, Hayner's conviction was changed to Attempting to Unlawfully Manufacture Methamphetamine, but the life sentence and fine were kept the same.

Continue ReadingF-2005-314

F-2004-1226

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1226, Anthony Jerome Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including felony eluding an officer, obstructing an officer, and robbery with a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for eluding an officer and robbery with a firearm, but reversed the conviction for obstructing an officer, with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the obstruction charge. The case stemmed from an incident where Johnson carjacked a woman’s car and fled from police after they initiated a traffic stop. During his escape, he ran numerous stop signs and caused danger to others on the road. Following a high-speed chase, he crashed the car and then ran on foot, trying to evade capture from arresting officers. At trial, Johnson was found guilty and sentenced to several years in prison as well as a fine for the offenses committed. On appeal, he argued four points. First, he claimed that the charges against him violated protections against double jeopardy, stating that the actions he took should not be counted as separate crimes since they arose from one act of fleeing. Second, he contended that evidence for felony eluding was not sufficient, suggesting the situation warranted a lesser charge. Third, he asserted that there was insufficient evidence for the armed robbery conviction. Lastly, he believed inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony supported reducing his sentence. The court, after reviewing the case thoroughly, determined that the convictions and sentences for eluding and robbery were valid. The court found sufficient evidence supporting these convictions, including testimony from eyewitnesses and evidence that directly linked Johnson to the robbery. However, they agreed with Johnson's argument regarding the obstructing charge, concluding both his car and foot chases should be treated as one continuous act of fleeing, therefore only allowing the conviction for eluding. In the end, the court affirmed the convictions for eluding an officer and robbery but instructed that the obstruction charge be dismissed. The dissenting opinion expressed a different view on the obstruction charge, arguing that Johnson's actions could be considered separate acts deserving of distinct charges.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1226

PR-2006-120

  • Post author:
  • Post category:PR

In OCCA case No. PR-2006-120, a petitioner appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (methamphetamine) and driving without seatbelts. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's request for relief in part and deny it in part. One judge dissented. The case began when the petitioner was charged with possessing methamphetamine and driving without a seatbelt. She initially agreed to a plea deal with the state, which involved accepting guilt for the drug charge and a fine for the seatbelt violation. However, when the petitioner refused to follow through with the state’s conditions for the plea, she attempted to enter a non-negotiated or blind guilty plea. The judge refused to accept her blind plea and insisted she proceed to trial, stating she did not have an absolute right to plead guilty. The petitioner believed she should be allowed to enter her guilty plea without the state’s conditions. This disagreement led her to file a petition with the court seeking orders to either allow her to plead guilty or to prevent the judge from forcing her to go to trial. After reviewing the facts of the case, the court found that the petitioner had a clear legal right to have her guilty plea accepted if it met the necessary legal requirements. The court noted that it was a mistake for the judge to reject her plea without evaluating whether it was voluntary and if there was a factual basis for it. The court granted part of the petitioner’s request by directing the district court judge to conduct a hearing on her blind plea and accept it if it correctly fulfilled the legal standards. However, the court denied her request to have her plea regarding the seatbelt violation accepted, as that plea required the judge’s approval. The dissenting judge expressed concerns about whether the petitioner had truly shown that she was being harmed by the trial court's refusal to accept her plea, suggesting that any challenges to a guilty plea rejection should typically be taken up in direct appeals rather than with this type of petition. The dissenting judge also supported the trial judge's discretion, arguing that the right to a jury trial must be upheld. In summary, the court ruled that the petitioner should be given a chance to enter her guilty plea under the law, but that her plea regarding the seatbelt violation did not have to be accepted.

Continue ReadingPR-2006-120

C-2005-398

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-398, Elisa Nielson appealed her conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child Under the Age of 16. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for certiorari and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented from the decision. Elisa Nielson had entered a guilty plea for her crime on February 7, 2005. The judge sentenced her to twenty years in prison, but she would only have to serve ten years if she followed certain rules. Nielson later wanted to take back her guilty plea because she thought there was confusion about what her sentence would be. She argued that a deal was made where she wouldn't be sentenced to more than five years in prison, but when it came time for sentencing, the judge did not follow that recommendation. Nielson brought her case to a higher court, saying that the trial judge should have let her change her mind about the guilty plea before sentencing. The higher court looked at all the facts and agreed with her. They found that the confusion about the plea meant she should have been allowed to withdraw it. The court decided Nielson's issue about the sentence was not relevant after they allowed her to withdraw her plea. So, they granted her request and sent the case back to the lower court to work things out according to their ruling. One judge disagreed and said that Nielson understood what she was doing when she accepted her guilty plea. He thought the agreement was clear and that the lower court had done everything correctly. He would not have granted her appeal.

Continue ReadingC-2005-398

F-2005-129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2005-129

F 2004-1124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1124, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Keith William Matson, who was convicted in Garvin County for shooting with the intent to kill. On May 17, 2004, he chose to have a judge decide his case instead of a jury. However, when the judge made the decision on August 10, 2004, Mr. Matson was not present, and he did not get the chance to hear closing arguments from his lawyer before the verdict was given. Mr. Matson raised a number of issues in his appeal. He argued that the judge should not have been able to make orders after a certain date, that the way the judge found him guilty was not allowed by Oklahoma law, and that he was not there when the judgment was announced. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of the unusual way the trial was conducted and that he did not get good legal help. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the trial. It noted that after an earlier attempt to have a jury trial in October 2003 ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree, Mr. Matson was advised by his lawyer to waive the right to a jury and allow the judge to review transcripts of the earlier trial. However, the law clearly states that a defendant must be present and allowed to have closing arguments during a trial, which did not happen in Mr. Matson's case. Because of these issues, the appeals court decided that Mr. Matson’s conviction needed to be reversed, and he deserved a new trial. The court stated that it was important to make sure that every defendant has a fair trial and their rights are fully protected. The decision made by the judge during the last trial was found to be a serious mistake, which led to the court ruling in favor of a new trial for Mr. Matson. In summary, the court found that the procedure used in Mr. Matson's trial did not follow the law and was unfair, which is why they reversed the conviction and called for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1124

F 2004-1091

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1091, Mortarice D. Collier appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Marijuana) and Failure to Affix Tax Stamp. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the convictions. One judge dissented. Collier was found guilty of having illegal drugs and not paying the required tax on them. His trial was held without a jury, and he was sentenced to spend time in prison and pay fines. The trial court later reduced his prison time. Collier raised several issues on appeal, claiming that there wasn't enough evidence against him, that he did not get a speedy trial, that the fees for his imprisonment should be changed, and that the police didn't keep the marijuana properly to prove it was really his. After looking at all the arguments and evidence, the court found that the police did not show they kept the marijuana safe and secure after it was taken from Collier's vehicle. There were gaps in the evidence about where the drug was kept, which made it unclear if it was the same marijuana taken from Collier. The court believed that without proper care of the evidence, they could not trust the results of the tests done on the marijuana. Because of this, they decided to reverse Collier's convictions and said they should be dismissed. The judges’ votes were divided, with one dissenting opinion arguing that the original convictions should not be overturned based on speculation about tampering. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to support the arrest and that the case should not have been dismissed.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1091

J-2005-1078

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2005-1078, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order that sentenced the appellant as an adult and directed that he be treated as a youthful offender in the event of a conviction. No judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged as a youthful offender on September 23, 2004. After a request to be treated as a juvenile was denied, the state filed a motion to sentence the appellant as an adult. This motion led to a trial that was scheduled for September 12, 2005. However, just before the trial started, the state asked to cancel the trial and have a hearing on the motion to sentence him as an adult, which was scheduled for October 12, 2005. During the appeal, the appellant raised three main issues. He argued that the delays in bringing the charges against him were unfair and that the case should be dismissed. He also claimed that the state could not pursue adult sentencing because the trial had already begun before the hearing, and lastly, he said there wasn't enough evidence to show he couldn't be helped through the juvenile system. The court looked closely at the timing of when the trial started and when the hearing to sentence him as an adult happened. They determined that the trial had indeed started when jury selection began, and the law required that the hearing on the adult sentencing motion should have happened before the trial began. Since it did not, the court found that the district court made a mistake by allowing the state to strike the trial after jury selection had started and then proceed with the sentencing hearing. As a result, the order to sentence the appellant as an adult was reversed, and the case was sent back to the district court with instructions to treat the appellant as a youthful offender if he were to be convicted.

Continue ReadingJ-2005-1078

F-2004-688

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-688, Arthur Gerald Graves appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial with effective counsel. One judge dissented. Graves was convicted after a non-jury trial where he was found to have drugs in his possession. The police had noticed a lot of people going in and out of a hotel room and decided to investigate. When the police knocked on the door and were let in, Graves showed up with a bag in his hand. This made the officers suspicious. They arrested him and found drugs and cash on him. Graves claimed that the police did not have a good reason to search him or arrest him. He argued he was just carrying his keys when he knocked on the door. However, the trial court did not agree with him and allowed the evidence found to be used against him in court. During the appeal, Graves's main argument was that he did not receive good help from his lawyers. The court found that his lawyers did not do their job well, which affected the trial's outcome. They had three different attorneys, and their lack of teamwork hurt his defense. The judges noted that the defense lawyers failed to present important evidence that could have helped Graves and that they made some arguments that did not relate to the case. The court stated that the mistakes made by Graves's lawyers made it hard to trust the trial's results. Because of this, they decided that Graves deserved another chance to have a proper trial with the right legal help. Therefore, the court reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2004-688

F 2004-582

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-582, Ryan Golden appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided that he was entitled to a new trial because he was not given the correct number of chances to challenge jurors. The ruling was that the trial court's mistake was serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, and because of this error, the original sentence was reversed and a new trial was ordered. One judge dissented, arguing that there should have been a demonstration of actual prejudice or harm caused by the mistake.

Continue ReadingF 2004-582

F-2004-410

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-410, Twyla Tanner appealed her conviction for Embezzlement by Bailee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from forty-five years to twenty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Twyla Tanner was found guilty after a jury trial. The court had to decide on several issues raised by Tanner regarding her trial, including errors in denying her motion for a new trial, not allowing a witness to testify, the sufficiency of evidence, the length of her sentence, and whether all of these issues combined affected her right to a fair trial. The court determined that the trial judge made the right choices in handling these issues. They agreed that Tanner’s request for a new trial was not given because it was late. They also supported the judge's decision to prevent a witness from testifying because Tanner did not follow the rules for sharing her evidence in time. The court found enough evidence for the jury to decide she was guilty of stealing. However, they thought that the original sentence of forty-five years was very harsh for the crime and the situation. They changed it to twenty years in prison after considering the facts, including that she did not cause any damage and returned the vehicle she was accused of embezzling. One judge disagreed with reducing Tanner's sentence, believing that the jury's decision was justified based on her past criminal record and that the prosecution's comments during the trial did not unfairly influence the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2004-410

C-2004-1156

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-1156, Timothy Mark Watkins appealed his conviction for child abuse and rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2004-1156

F 2004-577

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Lewis was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for serious crimes against a child. The jury decided that he should serve life in prison without parole for the majority of the counts and 20 years for one count. He then appealed this decision, raising three main problems he believed were wrong in his trial. First, he argued that he wasn't properly warned about the risks of representing himself in court, which meant he didn't fully understand what he was giving up by choosing to do so. This was important because it related to his rights as a citizen, protected under the Sixth Amendment. Second, he claimed that the trial court didn't look carefully at whether he was capable of standing trial. He thought there were signs that suggested he wasn't mentally fit for the trial, which might have violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, he complained that the trial court wouldn't allow him to delay the trial, which prevented him from calling witnesses and putting forth a strong defense. He believed this decision also violated his rights. The court noted that Mr. Lewis had been asking to represent himself for a long time before the trial. However, he only received permission to do so a few days before his trial began. The trial court denied his request for more time to prepare and to gather witnesses that he wanted to bring to help his case. The judges noted that having enough time to prepare is important for someone defending themselves in court, especially when they have only just been allowed to do so. The court found that denying him more time was unfair and hurt his chances for a fair trial. As a result, the court agreed that his right to present a defense had been violated when the trial court wouldn’t allow a continuance. This led them to reverse his convictions and order a new trial, meaning he would have another chance to fight the accusations against him. The other issues he raised about warnings and competency were not necessary to discuss because they were overshadowed by the first issue. In conclusion, the court decided that Mr. Lewis's convictions were unfair, and he will get a chance to have a new trial. One judge disagreed with this outcome, feeling that the trial court made the right decision in denying a continuance and that Mr. Lewis had not shown how he was harmed by that decision.

Continue ReadingF 2004-577

F-2004-1112

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1112, Stanley Trammell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Trammell was found guilty of murdering someone and also for shooting with the intent to kill. He received a life sentence for the murder and a four-year sentence for the shooting, which would be served one after the other. Trammell claimed that during his trial, he was not allowed to tell the jury that he acted in self-defense, which he believed was unfair. He also said that the court didn’t let him share information about the victim's character, which he thought was important for his case. The court looked closely at the trial records and decided that Trammell should have been allowed to explain that he was defending himself during the incident. Because of this mistake, the court concluded that Trammell was entitled to a new trial where he could present his defense properly.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1112

M-2004-802

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was stopped by a police officer early in the morning because his car was parked in a lot with its lights on, near a closed restaurant. The officer got suspicious due to a series of burglaries happening in the area recently. When the officer approached the car, it began to move. The officer then decided to stop the vehicle to ask what the appellant was doing there. During the trial, the appellant argued that the stop was illegal. He believed that the officer did not have enough reason to suspect that he was doing something wrong. The officer admitted during the hearing that he did not know for sure if the appellant was involved in criminal activity when he made the stop. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the officer did not have a good reason to think the appellant was doing anything suspicious. They pointed out that the appellant's actions could easily be seen as innocent. The conclusion was that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion, which is necessary to make a legal stop, and therefore the evidence collected after the stop should not have been used against the appellant. Ultimately, the court reversed the conviction, meaning that the case would not proceed further and the appellant's charges would be dismissed. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that the officer had good reasons to make the stop based on the circumstances around the time and location.

Continue ReadingM-2004-802

F 2003-1084

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1084, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. In this case, Darrell Robert Johnson was found guilty of trafficking illegal drugs and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury gave him a life sentence without the chance for parole for the first charge, and a fine for the second charge. He was unhappy with the way the trial went and believed mistakes were made that affected the outcome. One of the key mistakes he pointed out was that the jury had trouble reaching a unanimous decision. During their discussions, it became clear that one juror was not convinced of Johnson's guilt. The juror felt pressured by the others to change his mind, which made the situation problematic and unfair. This juror expressed confusion about the deliberation process in notes to the judge, which should have led to clearer instructions being given. The judge talked to the jurors about what deliberation meant but did not provide the specific charge that addresses situations where juries are stuck. This is typically done to ensure jurors understand they shouldn't feel forced to give in just to agree and go home. After discussing their options, the jury still couldn't agree, and the judge sent them back to deliberate further without giving a proper instruction. Eventually, the jury reached a verdict, but one juror said it wasn’t his honest opinion that the defendant was guilty. The judge had to decide if they could accept that verdict or if they needed to keep discussing. The court found that sending the jury back without the proper instruction was a mistake that affected Johnson's right to a fair trial. It was determined that the pressure on the juror likely influenced his decision to agree with the group. In the end, the court decided that because the jury had not been properly instructed, Darrell's convictions should be reversed. The case was sent back for a new trial. This means that the mistakes made during the trial could not be allowed to stand, and Darrell Johnson deserved another chance to prove his side in court. The judges had differing opinions on this decision, with some agreeing and some disagreeing on whether the trial was managed correctly. One judge believed that the trial judge handled the situation well and didn’t see a reason to reverse the ruling. However, the majority of the court found the errors significant enough to require a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1084

F-2004-268

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-268, Martin Roy Romero appealed his conviction for drug-related crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of his convictions but upheld the rest. A judge dissented in part. Romero was found guilty by a jury in Stephens County for three charges: Conspiracy to Traffic in Methamphetamine, Trafficking in Methamphetamine, and Using a Minor to Distribute Methamphetamine. He was sentenced to several years in prison and significant fines. Romero raised several issues on appeal. He claimed that the prosecutor's actions during the trial were unfair and affected his chances for a fair trial. He also argued that he should not have been punished for both conspiracy and trafficking crimes because they stemmed from the same act, saying it was a violation of his rights against double punishment. He thought that the evidence used to convict him of conspiracy was not enough. Lastly, he felt that it was wrong to convict him of using a minor for trafficking and trafficking itself, again arguing it was related to the same act. After reviewing the case, the court found that one of the convictions for trafficking was indeed improperly counted and reversed that decision. They decided that his actions did not violate the rule against double punishment for the other charges. The court concluded that there was enough evidence to support the conspiracy charge. However, the conviction for trafficking was reversed because the same act could not support two different charges. In summary, the court agreed with Romero about the double punishment issue regarding trafficking, but upheld the other convictions. The final decision reversed and remanded the trafficking charge while affirming the rest.

Continue ReadingF-2004-268

F-2004-110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA Case No. F-2004-110, Kelly Dallas Evans appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree and Possession of Burglary Tools. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences, although they modified the fine for the possession of burglary tools. One justice dissented. Evans was found guilty by a jury of burglary after they considered his past felony convictions. The jury recommended a life sentence for the burglary and a one-year jail sentence for having burglary tools, along with a fine. Evans argued that the prosecutor made unfair comments about his silence during the trial, that his life sentence was too harsh for a property crime, and that the fine for the misdemeanor was too high. The court examined Evans' complaints. They noted that his claims about the prosecutor’s comments were not raised during the trial, meaning they were looked at carefully for any major mistakes. They found that the prosecutor's remarks did not directly point to Evans not testifying but were more about the weak defense he presented. On the issue of his life sentence, the court recognized that it seemed severe, but they upheld it based on Evans' criminal history, saying it did not shock their sense of fairness. Regarding the fine for possession of burglary tools, the court agreed it was too high and decreased it to the correct maximum amount. In summary, the court confirmed Evans' long prison term for the burglary but changed the fine for the other charge.

Continue ReadingF-2004-110

F-2004-871

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-871, George Shelton, Jr., appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Shelton's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. George Shelton was found guilty after a trial. He was accused of hiding stolen things and had a history of past crimes, which meant he could face a heavier punishment. The jury decided on a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Shelton thought this punishment was too harsh and argued that what the prosecutor did was unfair because they brought up his past crimes during the trial. He believed this was done because he had tried to defend himself. The court looked very closely at everything that happened. They thought there wasn’t enough evidence to show that the prosecutor acted unfairly against Shelton. They believed that the facts presented during the case were enough to prove he was guilty. However, they agreed with Shelton that his punishment was too much. They decided to change his sentence to five years instead of thirty-five. In short, the court upheld the conviction of Shelton but changed his punishment to be less severe. While one judge agreed with the conviction and the sentence reduction, they did not think the modification was correct and chose to disagree.

Continue ReadingF-2004-871