Trial Proceedings Archives

S-2019-479

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 9, 2020
Post category:S

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case involving Chris Forte and Skyla Forte, who were charged with Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. The order of the District Court, which quashed the child abuse charge due to insufficient evidence, has been reversed by the appellate court. Key points from the document include: 1. The appellate court held that the District Court abused its discretion in determining that the magistrate's bind-over order for Count 1 (Child Abuse by Injury) was not based on competent evidence. 2. The preliminary hearing established that the alleged victim, a six-year-old girl named K.K., suffered extensive bruising and malnourishment which were reported as a result of the conduct of the Appellees. 3. Evidence included testimony from a child abuse pediatrician whose findings indicated that the injuries were consistent with abuse rather than legitimate disciplinary actions. 4. The court stated that the determination of whether the force used was reasonable or excessive is typically a matter for a jury to decide. 5. Ultimately, the matter has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The case illustrates the legal standards for assessing probable cause during preliminary hearings and clarifies the threshold for determining whether the use of physical discipline may cross into abusive conduct under Oklahoma law.

F-2017-1147

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 12, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1147, Michael Andrew Nordbye appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree (Child Abuse). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. One judge dissented. Michael Andrew Nordbye was found guilty of killing a four-year-old girl named J.H. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, and he was also fined $1,000. The case involved disturbing evidence of injuries on J.H.'s body, including bruises and cigarette burns, which suggested she had been abused before her tragic death. On November 15, 2015, J.H. was brought to the hospital but was unresponsive and cold. Doctors tried to save her, but she was declared dead shortly after arriving. The medical examiner determined that J.H. had blunt force injuries and several cigarette burns. They believed these injuries were inflicted shortly before her death. Evidence showed that Nordbye was with J.H. during the hours leading up to her death but his account of the events was inconsistent. During the trial, it was revealed that he had taken her to various places and returned home, where J.H. was later found unresponsive. Witnesses testified about the day of J.H.'s death, including retrospective video surveillance and testimonies that placed Nordbye with J.H. in different locations. The jury was presented with medical evidence indicating the cause of death was homicide due to blunt force trauma, compounded by a possible drug overdose. Despite Nordbye's claims, the jury found him guilty based on the compelling evidence that linked him to the injuries and the timeline leading up to J.H.'s death. Several claims made by Nordbye about improper legal proceedings were dismissed by the court, including issues concerning jury instructions and witness testimonies that were not allowed. The court ultimately found that the trial had been conducted fairly and that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that Nordbye was guilty of the charges.

F-2017-1307

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1307, James Rex Clark appealed his conviction for four counts of Child Abuse by Injury and one count of First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. James Rex Clark and his wife were charged after the tragic disappearance of a boy named Colton, who was living with them. They had adopted Colton and his older brother T.J.S. after the boys were removed from their biological parents due to drug and alcohol issues. In 2006, Colton was reported missing, and a massive search took place; however, no trace of him was ever found. T.J.S. later revealed that he had been abused by the Appellants and expressed fears about his brother's fate. After years had passed, T.J.S. reached out to authorities to provide information about the abusive environment he and Colton had experienced while living with their uncle and aunt. As a result of T.J.S.’s testimony and an investigation that followed, both James and his wife were charged with the serious crimes. During the trial, T.J.S. described the harsh treatment he and Colton endured, which included physical abuse and isolation from others. He explained that after Colton had an argument with James, he was taken to a bedroom, and T.J.S. later found him unresponsive on the couch. James tried to argue that he did not receive a fair trial. He claimed that parts of the trial were not properly recorded and that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself. He contended that evidence against him was presented in a way that was not appropriate and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. However, the court explained that there was no evidence that the issues James raised affected the outcome of the trial. They found that the testimony about Colton’s character and life was important and properly admitted to show that he would not have run away. They also considered that the defense did not provide sufficient reasons for their claims of error. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction, affirming that the evidence showed James was guilty of the serious charges. T.J.S.'s accounts of the abuse were significant in proving what James and his wife had done. The judges concluded that despite the many claims made by James, they did not find the errors alleged by him to be valid or sufficient to overturn the jury's decision. The court’s ruling confirmed that James would face life imprisonment as recommended by the jury based on the severity of the crimes committed against Colton. This case highlighted serious issues regarding child welfare and the responsibilities of adults toward children in their care.

D-2014-153

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2019
Post category:D

In OCCA case No. N 2014-153, Harris appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court affirmed the death sentence, finding sufficient evidence of his crime and rejecting claims of an incomplete trial record. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]

F-2018-309

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-309, Adrian Escajeda appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Adrian Escajeda was found guilty of first-degree murder by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was also convicted earlier of two drug possession charges, but those were not part of his appeal. During his trial, Escajeda claimed there were several errors that negatively impacted his case. First, he argued that it was wrong to have both his murder case and a separate child neglect case tried together in front of the same jury. He believed this made it hard for the jury to be fair. However, the court found that he didn't show how this joined trial actually harmed him because the jury had acquitted him of the child neglect charge. Additionally, the evidence against him for murder was very strong and unrelated to the child neglect, making the combined trial harmless. Escajeda also said his lawyer did not do a good job by not objecting to the charges being joined for trial. However, the court decided that his lawyer's performance wasn’t ineffective because there wasn’t any real prejudice; the outcome was not affected. The next point Escajeda raised was about some statements made during the trial. He believed hearsay was wrongly admitted, which violated his right to confront witnesses. The court looked into this and concluded that the statements in question were not hearsay, as they were used to explain the detective's investigation and did not assert the truth of those statements. Finally, Escajeda claimed that the prosecutor made unfair comments during the trial that made it hard for the jury to be impartial. The court examined these comments and found they were reasonable and based on the evidence presented. Since the comments did not create an unfair trial, the court dismissed this argument as well. In conclusion, the court reviewed all of Escajeda’s claims and found none of them warranted a change to his conviction or sentence. As a result, his conviction for first-degree murder remained in place, and he will serve the majority of his sentence in prison.

C-2017-1050

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 8, 2018
Post category:C

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma Summary Opinion** **David Neil Dunn v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No. C-2017-1050** **Filed November 8, 2018** **Summary:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case of David Neil Dunn, who sought to withdraw his no contest plea for various serious charges. Dunn appealed on the basis that he was denied his due process right to be present during the evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. **Key Points:** 1. **Charges and Plea**: Dunn was charged with multiple felonies, including First Degree Robbery and Burglary. He entered a blind plea of no contest, which resulted in significant prison sentences. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: Dunn filed a motion to withdraw his plea shortly after sentencing, claiming various legal grounds, including concerns about the validity of his plea. An evidentiary hearing was held, but Dunn was not present as he had been transported to the Department of Corrections. 3. **Court's Ruling**: The Court found that Dunn had a due process right to be present during this critical stage of the proceedings. The absence of Dunn hindered a fair and just hearing, particularly concerning his claims about the voluntariness of his plea. 4. **Counsel’s Role**: The court clarified that defense counsel's belief that Dunn's presence was unnecessary does not equate to a valid waiver of his right to be present. The decision emphasized that Dunn's testimony was crucial for effectively contesting the plea's validity. 5. **Outcome**: The Court granted Dunn's petition for certiorari and remanded the case back to the District Court for a proper evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea, ensuring he would be present. 6. **Dissenting Opinion**: One judge dissented, arguing that the absence of Dunn did not constitute a violation of his rights, noting that his counsel had effectively represented him at the hearing. It was contended that the procedural complexities of representation should not be interpreted as waivers of due process. **Conclusion**: The Court ruled in favor of Dunn, stressing the importance of a defendant's presence in legal proceedings, particularly when their rights and pleas are being challenged, which underscores the principles of fairness and due process within the judicial system. For a detailed reading, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2017-1050_1733996496.pdf).

F-2016-626

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 19, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-626, Christopher Shane Lee Fuentez appealed his conviction for Conjoint Robbery and Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the charges. One judge dissented. Summary: Christopher Shane Lee Fuentez was found guilty by a jury of two crimes: Conjoint Robbery and Possession of a Firearm. He was sentenced to 20 years for the robbery and 3 years for the firearm charge, both sentences to run at the same time. The case was appealed because Fuentez argued that he shouldn’t have been tried again after his first trial ended in a mistrial, which he believed happened without good reason. The court agreed with Fuentez, stating that the reasons for declaring a mistrial did not meet the standard of manifest necessity. This meant that the judge who ordered the mistrial didn’t have the right reasons to stop the trial. It was important for Fuentez to have his trial finished by the jury that was already picked, and the court found that the trial judge should have considered other less drastic options before calling for a mistrial. Therefore, the court reversed Fuentez's convictions and instructed to dismiss the charges because he had already been tried once. The decision also meant that the other reasons he gave for appeal didn’t need to be looked at anymore. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion, believing that the mistrial was warranted because of Fuentez's actions in trying to influence witnesses.

MA 2018-0296

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 5, 2018
Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA 2018-0296, J.M.F. appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his application for a writ of mandamus and remand the matter to the District Court. The court found that J.M.F. was personally indigent and entitled to receive transcripts at public expense for his appeal, despite the trial court's earlier ruling about his parents' ability to pay. One judge dissented.

PC-2015-6

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 3, 2015
Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC-2015-6, Kendall Wayne Edwards appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted post-conviction relief, vacating Edwards's murder conviction and ordering a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented. The case stemmed from an incident on March 9, 2001, where Edwards was accused of shooting Gerald Lamont Ford during a fight outside a convenience store. Edwards was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he sought post-conviction relief in 2012, claiming several errors occurred during his trial, including improper admission of evidence and ineffective legal representation. The court's analysis focused primarily on the newly discovered evidence claim, which was that another witness, Larika A. Alexander, could potentially exonerate him by stating she saw him being beaten and heard the gunshot without witnessing him fire the weapon. The lower court agreed that this evidence was significant enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and held that Edwards deserved a new trial. While the majority opinion supported this conclusion, a dissenting judge argued that the new evidence did not sufficiently meet the standard required to warrant a new trial since it was cumulative and lacked materiality. The dissent emphasized that the jury had already evaluated the credibility of the witnesses during the original trial. Ultimately, the court's decision to uphold the lower court's granting of a new trial was based on the notion that justice required the possibility of a different outcome with this new testimony. Thus, Edwards was granted the opportunity for a re-examination of the case.

F-2013-1129

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 20, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1129, Aaron Mitchell Stigleman appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involves Aaron Stigleman, who shot and killed his mother in Elk City, Oklahoma, on February 13, 2013. At the time of the incident, he lived with his girlfriend and mother, both of whom had a history of drug use, specifically methamphetamine. Aaron was believed to be suffering from paranoia and hallucinations due to his drug use leading up to the shooting. Witnesses, including his girlfriend, testified that he accused them of trying to kill him before he shot his mother in the head. During his trial, Stigleman's attorneys failed to secure an expert witness to help argue that he was under the influence of methamphetamine and not in control of his actions at the time of the crime. They tried to get funding for an expert, but their requests were either late or not sufficiently justified. As a result, they could not present an argument related to his mental state or introduce expert testimony that could aid in the defense of insanity or diminished capacity. The court noted that Stigleman's behavior before, during, and after the incident indicated the possibility of a serious mental health issue caused by drug use, which warranted an expert’s evaluation. The silence of an expert on the mental health issues surrounding his drug use could have made a significant difference in the outcome. The court ruled that Stigleman’s attorneys did not adequately represent him by failing to present a complete defense. The decision emphasized that the right to present a complete defense is constitutionally guaranteed. Based on these findings, the court deemed it necessary to grant Stigleman a new trial to allow for proper evaluation of his mental state. While one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the defense had not shown that the lack of expert testimony prejudiced Stigleman's case, the majority concluded that the claims and evidence presented merited a reversal and a new opportunity for a fair trial.

C-2013-309

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 11, 2014
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2013-309, the petitioner appealed his conviction for possession of controlled substances and possession of contraband. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea and affirmed the lower court's judgment and sentence. One justice dissented. The case involved Joseph Leonard Cox, Jr., who entered a guilty plea to charges related to drug possession. This plea was part of a deal to resolve two separate cases. The court sentenced him to ten years in prison for one charge and five years for another, with some fines. The sentences would run at the same time, which means he would serve them together. Later, Cox wrote a letter that seemed to ask to take back his guilty plea. The court had a hearing about this but decided not to let him withdraw the plea. Cox's main arguments were that he was pressured into his plea, his lawyer did not help him enough, and he wanted a new hearing to challenge his plea. However, the court found that there wasn’t enough evidence to show he was coerced into pleading guilty. They also determined that his legal representation during the hearing was sufficient. The court noted that the rules allowed for his past time in jail to be counted toward his sentence, and they directed the lower court to correct its records to reflect this. In summary, they denied his request but agreed on the correction of his time served in the sentencing documents. Thus, the earlier decision of the district court was largely upheld.

F-2011-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Mitchell's case for a trial where he may be allowed to represent himself. One judge dissented. This case began when Mitchell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy after a jury trial. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 35 years for conspiracy, along with an additional 10 years for unauthorized vehicle use. Mitchell appealed, stating four main reasons why he believed his conviction should be overturned. First, Mitchell claimed that he was not allowed to represent himself during his trial, which he argued violated his rights. He believed he could defend himself better than his attorney. However, the court denied his request for self-representation, stating that it was not in his best interest. The court should have ensured that he was fully aware of the potential risks associated with representing himself before denying his request. Second, Mitchell argued that the laws applied to him during his murder prosecution were not supported by the evidence presented. He believed his rights were violated, which would require the court to dismiss the murder charge. Third, Mitchell stated that he was not allowed to present a full defense in court, suggesting that this was an unfair violation of his rights. Finally, he claimed that his attorney did not provide effective assistance, which is a right guaranteed by law. After reviewing all the information in the case, the court found that Mitchell's first argument was valid. It concluded that the trial court had wrongly denied his request to represent himself and that this mistake warranted a reversal of his conviction. They remanded the case back to the lower court so Mitchell could exercise his right to defend himself. Although the court found that the felony-murder charge against Mitchell was valid, and that there was no error in the jury instructions about the defenses, they acknowledged that these points were not the main issue due to the ruling on self-representation. Consequently, the matter about ineffective counsel was deemed moot. The final decision was to reverse the current judgments against Mitchell and send the case back to start fresh, allowing Mitchell the opportunity to represent himself.

F-2011-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2013
Post category:F

F-2010-288

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 7, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-288, Gary Don Thompson II appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, meaning Thompson's conviction was thrown out. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Okmulgee County. The jury recommended that Thompson get ten years in prison and pay a $5,000 fine. Thompson's lawyers argued that the evidence used to convict him was obtained in a way that was not allowed by law. Before the trial, they asked the court to suppress, or not allow, the evidence. The court denied this request based on what the police officer said at an earlier hearing. However, during the trial, the officer explained what happened in detail, and his story was different from what he said before. The officer admitted that he did not have any reason to think Thompson was doing anything wrong. He only saw Thompson walking at night in an area he thought had a lot of crime. At trial, the officer said that Thompson threw away a bag of marijuana after the officer told him to stop. The court looked at this new information and believed that Thompson was stopped by the police without enough reason to do so. Because of this, the court said that Thompson's actions of throwing away the marijuana were the result of being detained improperly, and they found that the previous court had made a mistake in not allowing the evidence to be suppressed. The final decision was to reverse Thompson's conviction and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it.

S-2009-862

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 10, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing evidence. Margaret Ann Brumfield was also charged with the same crime in a companion case numbered S-2009-862, and the same ruling applied. The case began when Trooper Johnson stopped the vehicle driven by Mr. Brumfield for speeding and discovered he did not have a valid driver's license. Mrs. Brumfield was a passenger in the vehicle. During the stop, the officer suspected Mr. Brumfield was under the influence of a drug, so he had both Brumfields sit in the patrol car while he searched the vehicle. Initially, he found nothing, and he allowed them to leave. However, after listening to a conversation the couple had in the patrol car, he suspected there might be drugs under the passenger seat. When he searched again, he found methamphetamine. The State appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that the officer did have the right to search the vehicle due to Mr. Brumfield’s behavior and suspected drug use. However, the court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that reasonable suspicion (which the trooper had) is not enough for probable cause. The initial search was not justified, leading to the suppression of the evidence found later. Thus, the court's final decision affirmed the district court’s ruling that the search was unreasonable, and therefore, the evidence obtained could not be used in court against the Brumfields.

F-2005-557

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 5, 2006
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.

F-2005-366

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2006
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.

F-2003-1241

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 23, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1241, Eddie Don Milligan appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Milligan's conviction. One judge dissented. Milligan was found guilty by a jury of growing marijuana on his property and was given a six-year prison sentence. He appealed the decision, stating that there were multiple mistakes in his trial, including the improper use of evidence obtained from a search of his property that he believed violated his rights to privacy. The case started when agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics were flying in a helicopter looking for marijuana. Due to engine trouble, they flew over Milligan's property and thought they saw marijuana plants. They did not check for sure but recorded the spot and returned the next day, where they saw only corn. They then obtained a search warrant and found some marijuana leaves near a burn pile, but nothing else that indicated marijuana was being grown. Milligan argued that the helicopter flight over his property violated his right to privacy. The court agreed, saying he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his yard. The agents hadn't done enough to confirm they saw marijuana before getting the warrant. In the end, the court ruled that Miligan's rights were violated and reversed his conviction, sending the case back for further proceedings. The other arguments he made about his trial mistakes were not addressed since this decision resolved the main issue.

C-2003-1247

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 6, 2004
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-1247, Robert Hershal Perkis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and burglary in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, reverse the kidnapping conviction, and modify the burglary conviction to second-degree burglary. One judge dissented on the kidnapping aspect. Robert Hershal Perkis was charged with three serious crimes: robbery using a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, and first-degree burglary. He pleaded nolo contendere, which means he did not contest the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of 60 years in prison for these crimes, with the sentences running one after the other, and ordered him to pay fines and restitution. Later, Perkis filed an application to withdraw his guilty pleas, stating that his pleas were not supported by enough evidence, that the sentences were too harsh, and that he did not receive good help from his lawyer. The court looked into these claims and first examined if the pleas were based on sufficient evidence. For the robbery charge, the court found that the victim was threatened with a dangerous weapon and had property taken from him, which satisfied the elements of robbery. Thus, the court upheld Perkis' conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In looking at the kidnapping charge, the court considered the facts surrounding the incident. The victim was taken to a field and held there by Perkis and others. The central issue was whether the confinement of the victim could be considered “secret.” The court decided that because the victim was in a public area, it did not meet the legal definition of secret confinement, which led to the reversal of the kidnapping conviction. Regarding the burglary charge, the court found that while there were issues concerning the evidence for first-degree burglary, it chose to modify the conviction to second-degree burglary instead, giving Perkis a shorter sentence for that conviction. Overall, the court's opinion granted some relief to Perkis by reversing one conviction and modifying another, but kept the robbery conviction intact. The dissenting judge felt that the kidnapping conviction should stand, arguing that the facts should be considered as a case of secret confinement.

F-2003-583

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-583, Ronald Lee King appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of Cocaine Base, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Ronald King was found guilty of delivering a type of illegal drug. The jury decided that he should go to prison for twenty-five years and pay a fine of $30,000. King thought the trial was unfair for several reasons. First, he argued that the evidence, which was the illegal drug, should not have been used in court. He believed there was not enough proof to show that the drug was really connected to him. However, the court thought that the State had enough proof to say that the evidence was properly linked to King. Second, King said he should have been able to see notes from a police officer who helped in his case. The court found that there was no mistake here because King had everything he needed from the prosecutor's file. Third, King believed his punishment was too harsh and thought the prosecutor said some unfair things during the trial that might have influenced the jury. The court agreed that the sentence was too much in terms of the fine. They lowered the fine from $30,000 to $10,000 but kept the prison sentence the same. In the end, King's prison sentence stands, but the amount he has to pay was reduced.

MA-2001-117

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 3, 2001
Post category:MA

In OCCA case No. MA-2001-117, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of Murder in the First Degree and two counts of Robbery With a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for an extraordinary writ, which means the court decided to stop the prosecution from seeking the death penalty in the retrial. The dissenting opinion noted concerns regarding the outcome of the case based on previous legal interpretations and precedents. The case began with the Petitioner charged in two separate cases, related to tragic events that resulted in the loss of life and armed robbery. Initially, the jury found him guilty of all charges and recommended life sentences without parole for the murders and life imprisonment for the robbery offenses. However, this verdict was reversed, and the case was sent back for separate trials, which created a new legal situation. The Petitioner argued that he should not face the death penalty again because the first jury had already decided on a life sentence, indicating that they did not believe the death penalty should apply. This idea connects to the legal protection known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prevents someone from being tried multiple times for the same offense. The court looked closely at the issue of double jeopardy, discussing how it applies not just to being tried for the same crime, but also regarding the severity of punishment. They acknowledged that once a jury has had a chance to decide on a punishment like the death penalty, the state should not get a second opportunity to change that if the first jury chose not to impose it. As a result, the court found that the Petitioner should not have to go through the additional stress and public scrutiny of another capital sentencing trial when they had already made a clear decision against it previously. Thus, the petition to prohibit the state from seeking the death penalty was granted.