In OCCA case No. F-2019-37, Suggs appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial on that count due to an instructional error, while affirming the convictions on the other counts. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-1263, Leatherwood appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions. One judge dissented. Travis Michael Leatherwood fatally shot Aaron Smith on Halloween night in 2017. They were once friends and worked together selling marijuana, but their friendship soured when Smith stole marijuana from Leatherwood. On the night of the shooting, Smith, upset by an exchange of insults with Leatherwood, went to confront him, unarmed. Leatherwood shot Smith with a rifle before he could say a word. Smith later died from the gunshot wound. After the shooting, police found a lot of evidence connecting Leatherwood to marijuana distribution at his home, including a rifle that he had used to shoot Smith and other drug-related items. Leatherwood argued in court that he acted in self-defense, but the jury did not agree. They concluded that he was the aggressor, especially since he called Smith a coward and provoked him. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, along with several drug-related charges. Leatherwood raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that the state did not prove he acted outside of self-defense, that the court gave confusing jury instructions, allowed improper amendments to the charges, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court disagreed with all of his claims. In terms of self-defense, the court ruled that Leatherwood’s actions and words indicated he was not acting in self-defense but rather was the one who provoked the situation. He had armed himself before Smith arrived and shot him before any confrontation occurred. The court also discussed the jury instructions, concluding that the district court did not err by omitting instructions on a lesser charge of heat of passion manslaughter since there was no evidence to support that Smith's actions would provoke such a response from Leatherwood. As for the amendment of charges, the court determined that Leatherwood was sufficiently informed of the charges he faced and that he could defend against them adequately. The evidence showed that he had both the firearm and the controlled substances as part of his operations, fulfilling the requirements for his convictions. Leatherwood's claim that his lawyer was ineffective was also denied because the court found that the lawyer's strategies were reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against Leatherwood. The lawyer focused his arguments on the more serious murder charge rather than the drug offenses, which the jury could have easily decided against Leatherwood irrespective of those counts. Finally, the court ruled that Leatherwood's sentence was not excessive given the nature of the crime and his actions. The judge pointed out that the jury was aware of his age (20 at the time of the crime) and other circumstances, which did not make the sentence shockingly excessive. Ultimately, the court affirmed Leatherwood's convictions and ordered a separate hearing regarding the restitution amount, which needed to be calculated more accurately.
**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case Summary: Joshua Loyd Bullard v. The State of Oklahoma** **Case No.: F-2018-1061** **Date Filed:** January 30, 2020 --- **Overview:** Joshua Loyd Bullard was convicted in the District Court of Stephens County for several offenses, including Petit Larceny, Resisting a Peace Officer, and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. The jury determined sentences for each count, ultimately resulting in consecutive sentences totaling eight years, along with fines. Bullard appealed on two grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. --- **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** - Claim: Bullard contended that his attorney failed to request a third competency evaluation. - Analysis: The court assessed this claim based on the two-pronged test from *Strickland v. Washington*. It determined that defense counsel did not provide deficient performance, noting that two prior evaluations had confirmed Bullard's competency. There was no evidence suggesting a change in Bullard's mental state warranting further evaluation. Thus, the court ruled that there was no ineffective assistance. 2. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** - Claim: Bullard argued that improper comments by the prosecutor regarding his prior suspended sentence during closing arguments prejudiced his trial. - Analysis: The court found that without objection from Bullard's counsel, review was limited to plain error. The court determined that the prosecutor’s references were permissible as they pertained to relevant evidence of prior convictions. Furthermore, the outcome of the sentencing showed that the jury's verdict was reasonable and not influenced by any improper statements. --- **Decision:** The appeals court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court, finding no merit in either of Bullard's propositions for appeal. **Judgment: AFFIRMED.** --- **Note:** The decision referenced case law and standards concerning competency evaluations and prosecutorial conduct during trials, underscoring the adherence to procedural norms. **For the Full Text Access:** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1061_1734859049.pdf)
In the case of **Jeremy Tyson Irvin v. The State of Oklahoma**, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the appeal of Irvin, who was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to life in prison. The court considered several claims raised by Irvin, including ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of the right to present a complete defense, admission of prejudicial evidence, failure to instruct on flight evidence, and cumulative errors. ### Key Propositions and Findings: 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: - Irvin asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for multiple reasons, including failure to use evidence related to his traumatic brain injury and lack of investigation into the circumstances surrounding his police statement. - The court noted that there is a high presumption of reasonable performance by counsel under the Strickland standard. Irvin failed to demonstrate any deficient performance that prejudiced the outcome of his trial. - His application for an evidentiary hearing to support his claims of ineffective assistance was denied, as he did not provide clear and convincing evidence of ineffective representation. 2. **Right to Present a Complete Defense**: - The trial court limited certain character evidence related to the victim’s violent history. However, the court allowed substantial testimony regarding the victim's prior bad acts. - As the defense sufficiently conveyed the context of Irvin's fear of the victim, the court found no error in limiting additional evidence. 3. **Admission of Evidence Regarding Standoff**: - The court upheld the admission of evidence concerning a thirteen-hour standoff that Irvin had with police, finding it relevant to his consciousness of guilt. The probative value was not substantially outweighed by any potential prejudicial effect, particularly since no objection was raised by the defense. 4. **Failure to Instruct on Flight**: - The absence of a flight instruction was reviewed for plain error but deemed not to have adversely affected Irvin’s substantial rights. The court found that the evidence of guilt existed independently of the standoff details. 5. **Cumulative Error**: - Irvin claimed that the accumulated errors denied him a fair trial. However, since the court found no individual errors warranting relief, this argument was also denied. ### Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Irvin's conviction and sentence, concluding that he was not denied effective assistance of counsel nor was any prejudicial error made during the trial process. The application for an evidentiary hearing related to ineffective assistance claims was also denied. The judgment emphasizes the court's adherence to the standards of due process and the evaluation of evidence within the legal framework guiding criminal proceedings in Oklahoma.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. F-2018-814** **MELINDA GAYLE HENRY,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Appellant, Melinda Gayle Henry, was convicted by jury of Embezzlement, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 1451, in the District Court of Nowata County Case Number CF-2016-71. The jury recommended a punishment of five years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000.00, which the trial court imposed. Appellant now appeals this judgment and sentence. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Appellant contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure necessary discovery. 2. **Failure to Request Continuance:** Appellant also asserts counsel was ineffective for not seeking a continuance for trial. 3. **Plain Error:** Lastly, Appellant claims the trial court committed plain error by proceeding to trial with unprepared counsel. **Analysis:** **Propositions One and Two (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel):** Under the Strickland v. Washington framework, Appellant must show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. There is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within a range of reasonable professional assistance. In Proposition One, Appellant argues that her counsel did not obtain critical records from the victim, The Woodshed convenience store, potentially impacting her defense. Counsel did request the records but believed they were destroyed. The trial court found that the State had offered access to the records, which the defense did not utilize. Appellant's assertion lacks evidence that obtaining these records would have changed the outcome of her trial; thus, this claim is speculative and fails to demonstrate prejudice. In Proposition Two, Appellant claims counsel was ineffective for not requesting a continuance due to the lack of records. However, the trial court's history with the case and previous findings suggested a request for a continuance would have been denied. Therefore, counsel would not be ineffective for abandoning a baseless motion. **Proposition Three (Plain Error):** Appellant's final claim of plain error regarding the trial being held without sufficient preparation fails under Rule 3.5(A)(5) of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which requires specific citations to the record. This assertion is superficial and unsubstantiated, leading to its waiver from appellate review. **Decision:** The judgment and sentence are **AFFIRMED**. **Mandate Ordered.** --- **APPEARANCES:** **AT TRIAL:** - **Mark Kane, Counsel for Appellant** - **Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Kevin Buchanan, Assistant District Attorney for the State** **ON APPEAL:** - **Kevin D. Adams, Counsel for Appellant** - **Katherine R. Morelli, Assistant Attorney General for the State** **OPINION BY:** **LUMPKIN, J.** **LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J.:** Concur in Result [Download Full Opinion PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-814_1735213396.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2018-477, Gerald L. Taylor appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Gerald L. Taylor was found guilty of serious crimes, including robbery using a firearm and having a firearm when he was not allowed to have one due to past convictions. The trial took place in Oklahoma County, where the judge sentenced Taylor to a total of thirty-five years in prison. Taylor raised several issues on appeal. First, he argued that his incriminating statements should not have been allowed in court because he wanted to remain silent. The court looked at whether he had clearly stated this right. It found that even though he initially said he didn’t want to talk, he later chose to answer questions. Therefore, the court believed he willingly spoke to police after being informed of his rights and upheld the decision to admit his statements. Second, Taylor claimed that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the removal of a juror who he thought could not understand English well enough to participate in the trial. However, the judge questioned the juror and decided she was competent. Since Taylor had not properly objected to the juror's presence and even invited the situation, this issue was not considered a strong point for his appeal. Third, Taylor stated that his lawyer did not help him effectively, especially concerning the juror issue. However, the court found that despite any possible mistakes, the evidence against Taylor was very strong. His lawyer’s actions did not cause him to lose a fair trial. Lastly, Taylor claimed that even if no single error was enough to change his conviction, the overall combination of issues should lead to a new trial. The court ruled that there were no errors significant enough to warrant a new trial or change in his sentence. In conclusion, the court upheld the original judgment and Taylor's sentences, indicating that he received a fair trial despite his complaints.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-322, Juan Carlos Renovato-Juaregui appealed his conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill and domestic assault and battery resulting in great bodily harm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. Judge Drummond merged the two counts into one, sentencing him to fifteen years in prison with credit for time served. The court found that the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct did not require reversal of the conviction. No judges dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-289, Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr., appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for engaging in inappropriate conduct with a child. The jury decided that he should spend six years in prison, and he has to serve 85% of that time before he can ask for parole. Crisel claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial, which he believed went against his rights. He said his attorney made mistakes in three important areas: not opposing a witness’s testimony, not bringing in a witness who was related to the victim, and not challenging the qualifications of an expert witness who testified against him. The court looked closely at these claims and the complete record of what happened during the trial. They explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Crisel needed to prove that his lawyer didn’t do their job well and that this affected the outcome of the case. The judges noted that there is a strong assumption that a lawyer’s actions are based on good judgment. For the first claim, Crisel argued his lawyer should have stopped a witness from talking about some old accusations against him. However, the court found that the information the witness shared was already given to the jury through other evidence. Therefore, the lawyer's choice to not object was a reasonable decision. For the second claim, Crisel wanted his brother to testify but did not show how having his brother's testimony would have helped him win the case. The court stated that the lawyer's decision to not call the brother was likely a strategic choice and they won’t question that. Lastly, regarding the expert witness, the court found that the lawyer did question the qualifications of this expert, and since many lawyers might handle this differently, having a different strategy does not necessarily mean the lawyer did a bad job. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that Crisel’s lawyer did not act ineffectively. The judges affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the request for more evidence or hearing on this issue was denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-500, Dale Lynn Taylor appealed his conviction for Second Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to fifteen years in prison. No judges dissented. Dale Lynn Taylor was put on trial and found guilty of Second Degree Rape after a jury deliberated on the evidence presented. He had a previous felony conviction from 1992, which the State tried to use to enhance his punishment. However, since the previous conviction was over ten years old, it was considered stale and should not have been used for increasing his sentence. The jury originally recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison. The court reviewed Taylor's claims of error, which included the improper use of the old conviction, the admission of certain evidence, and the actions of the prosecution during the trial. The court found that while some issues raised were valid, others were not significant enough to alter the outcome of the case. After looking closely at all the evidence, the court decided that Taylor's sentence should be reduced to fifteen years in prison. They believed this was a fair outcome considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the crime. Taylor's arguments about the trial process raised important points, but in the end, they did not change the decision about his guilt. The final outcome was that Taylor's conviction remained, but his punishment was adjusted to be more appropriate under the law. The court emphasized that even though there were problems, they did not warrant completely overturning the conviction. Therefore, he would still serve time but for a reduced period.
In OCCA case No. F-2014-22, Padillow appealed his conviction for rape and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed a citation for direct contempt of court and vacated the associated sentence. One judge dissented. Earnest Eugene Padillow faced serious charges in two cases related to the sexual abuse of young girls. The first case involved the abuse of his nine-year-old great-niece, S.G., during a single day in August 2007, and the second case involved the sexual assault of his 11-year-old niece, D.P., in 2011. In both instances, Padillow was accused of serious crimes, including rape and inappropriate sexual contact. During the trial, Padillow had a tumultuous relationship with his attorneys. He expressed dissatisfaction with their defense strategies and at times chose to represent himself. This led to a chaotic scene in the courtroom where Padillow violently attacked one of his attorneys, resulting in his removal from the courtroom. Despite his outbursts, the trial proceeded, and he was found guilty. The court sided with the trial judge's decision that Padillow waived his rights to be present during certain trial stages due to his disruptive conduct. Padillow also claimed that his constitutional right to testify was violated when he was removed from the courtroom. However, the court ruled that his violent actions constituted a waiver of that right. In another point of contention, Padillow argued that he should have been given the chance to respond to a direct contempt charge when the judge found him guilty of contempt for his outburst. Although the court acknowledged he did not have the opportunity to be heard, they decided to reverse the contempt finding rather than require a new hearing given the context of his other convictions. Lastly, it was determined that some of the judgment documents contained errors regarding sentences, which the court directed to be corrected. Overall, the court upheld the significant portions of Padillow's convictions while addressing some procedural errors related to his contempt citation and record-keeping in the judgments.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-974, Karena L. Gilbreath-Hancock appealed her conviction for Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for resentencing but affirmed her original conviction. One judge dissented. Gilbreath-Hancock was found guilty after a jury trial and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison along with a fine. She appealed for two main reasons. First, she claimed that her lawyer had a conflict of interest. However, the court found there was no actual conflict because Gilbreath-Hancock did not object to her lawyer's representation during the trial. The court stated that just because she disagreed with her lawyer's strategy, it did not mean there was a conflict of interest. Second, Gilbreath-Hancock argued that her rights were violated as the trial court failed to give the jury all the possible sentencing options available. The court agreed that the trial court made a mistake and needed to correct it. Because of this, they ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing, making sure that the jury would know all their options. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction of Gilbreath-Hancock, they recognized a mistake in the sentencing process and ordered that it be fixed.
In OCCA case No. C-2013-730, Mon'tre Brown appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Attempted Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand the case to the District Court. The dissenting opinion argued against the majority's decision. Mon'tre Brown was given several charges, including serious ones like murder and burglary. He pleaded guilty to all counts in April 2013 but later wanted to change his plea, claiming he didn’t understand what he was doing due to his mental condition. The trial court denied his request, leading to this appeal. During the initial plea hearing, there were concerns about Mon'tre's mental competency because of his low IQ, which was reported as around 65. His attorney was aware of his learning disabilities, but they appeared not to conduct a thorough investigation into his mental health before allowing him to plead guilty. Mon'tre claimed he felt pressured to plead guilty because his counsel had said he couldn’t win the case. At a later hearing, Mon'tre's family and mental health professionals testified that he struggle to understand the legal concepts involved in his case, which raised questions about his ability to make informed decisions. Some of the professionals stated he didn’t have a clear understanding of what his guilty plea meant or the consequences of waiving his right to trial. The court found that the attorney had not adequately assessed Mon'tre's competence or sought further evaluations that could have supported his claim of mental retardation. It decided that his attorney's failure to investigate his mental condition and present sufficient evidence during the plea process was ineffective assistance of counsel. Ultimately, the court believed that there’s a reasonable chance that had adequate evidence of Mon'tre's mental condition been presented early, it may have changed the outcome of his guilty plea. Thus, they ruled in favor of allowing Mon'tre to withdraw his guilty plea and directed for conflict-free counsel to represent him in further proceedings.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-326, Maurice Cortez Washington, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol, and Transporting an Open Container of Beer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Washington's conviction but modified his sentence to fifteen years imprisonment for the first count. One member dissented, arguing that the trial counsel's comments were a reasonable strategic decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-661, Mark Tracey Vernon appealed his conviction for five counts of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Vernon had been found guilty in a non-jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment on the rape charges and twenty years for the sodomy charge, with the sentences to be served one after another. Initially, he faced fourteen counts of rape and five of sodomy, but some were dismissed or he was acquitted of others during the trial. Vernon claimed that he did not receive a fair trial due to ineffective assistance from his lawyer. The court agreed and found that his defense attorney did not present important evidence that could have helped Vernon. This included failing to interview a witness who might have provided helpful information and not questioning the investigating officer about past allegations against one of the victims. The court noted that these mistakes were not part of a reasonable trial strategy. After reviewing the trial and additional evidence presented during a hearing, the court decided that Vernon's lawyer's performance was inadequate. Because of this, they believed that the trial's outcome could have been different if the mistakes had not happened. Vernon's judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new trial to ensure that he gets a fair chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F 2011-1043, Ricky Carlos Colbert appealed his conviction for assault and battery on a police officer and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but ordered the case to be sent back to correct the judgment and sentence to show the correct crime of assault and battery on a police officer. One judge dissented. Colbert was found guilty of assaulting a police officer after he was identified during a video of the crime. He raised several arguments for his appeal, including ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in jury instructions, introduction of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, inaccuracies in his sentence, and cumulative errors. The court carefully examined each argument. 1. For the first point, the court decided that Colbert's lawyer did not provide ineffective assistance. They felt his strategy in the case was acceptable, even if it didn't work out as planned. The lawyer's decision to dispute Colbert's identity rather than claiming he committed a lesser crime was valid, according to the court. 2. For the second point about not instructing the jury on a lesser offense, the court found that Colbert did not ask for this instruction, so they only looked for obvious errors (plain error). They concluded there was no plain error. 3. Regarding evidence, the court said the video of the crime was properly introduced, as there were no objections during the trial. 4. On the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found no serious wrongdoing from the prosecutors. 5. The fifth point involved many mistakes in the judgment, which required a remand to correct records to indicate the correct conviction. 6. Lastly, the court found there were no individual errors that required relief, so cumulative error claims were not valid. Overall, the court concluded to send the case back for corrections but allowed the original convictions to stand. Colbert’s request for a hearing about his lawyer’s effectiveness was also denied.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-354, Isaiah Hasan Gilbert appealed his conviction for Felonious Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence from thirty years to twenty years in prison. Gilbert was found guilty after a jury trial. He was charged with having a gun even though he was not allowed to because of his past criminal record. The jury recommended a sentence of thirty years and a fine of $5,000. Gilbert argued that his lawyer did not do a good job during the trial and that his sentence was too long considering the circumstances. The court looked carefully at everything that happened during the trial. It agreed that Gilbert's lawyer made mistakes but concluded that they did not affect the trial's outcome enough to reverse the conviction entirely. One of the main issues was that Gilbert's lawyer did not call a witness who could have said the gun belonged to someone else. Instead, the lawyer tried to bring that information up in a way that was not allowed, which was a mistake. The court also found that the jury heard improper information about Gilbert’s past, specifically that he had been given suspended sentences from previous convictions. The prosecutor mentioned this to the jury, which could have unfairly influenced their decision on how long to sentence him. Because of these issues, the court decided to reduce Gilbert's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. In conclusion, the decision by the court maintained Gilbert's conviction but reduced the time he had to spend in prison due to the unfair use of his past criminal history in the trial process.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-615, Lawrence Grant Stewart appealed his conviction for several crimes involving child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one count due to double punishment but affirmed the rest of the convictions. One judge dissented. Lawrence Grant Stewart was found guilty by a jury for multiple crimes, including lewd molestation, rape by instrumentation, and child sexual abuse. The jury recommended long prison sentences for each of the counts, leading to a total of several decades in prison. Stewart's appeal raised several issues regarding his trial and convictions. One point of appeal was that Stewart did not get effective help from his lawyer during the trial. He argued that his lawyer shared too much personal information with the jury, which he believed should not have been revealed. However, the court found that the lawyer's decisions were made to help Stewart and did not seriously harm his chances in the case. Stewart also claimed that he received multiple sentences for the same behavior, which he believed violated his rights. The court agreed in part, particularly regarding one count of child sexual abuse, and decided to reverse that count and dismiss it. However, they found that separate punishments for the other crimes were appropriate since they involved different actions. Lastly, Stewart argued that the sentences he received should not be served one after the other (consecutively), but the court decided the original judge made the right choice in this matter. In summary, while some of Stewart's appeal points were accepted and one count was reversed, most of his convictions remained upheld.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-794, Allen Eugene Bratcher appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to thirty years, although they affirmed his conviction. One judge dissented from the decision to reduce the sentence, stating that there was no error in how the prosecutor conducted the trial. Bratcher was found guilty in Garfield County and originally sentenced to seventy years in prison. He raised several issues on appeal, including concerns about his sentence being too harsh and the conduct of the prosecutor. The court found that while some of the prosecutor's statements were improper, the conviction did not need to be reversed. The judges determined that the long sentence shocked their sense of justice, especially given the circumstances of the case and Bratcher's lack of prior accusations. They reviewed the prosecutor's comments, especially those appealing to the jury's sympathy, and decided that these remarks contributed to the excessive original sentence. The court also considered Bratcher's claims regarding his lawyer's performance, but they ruled that the trial lawyer's decisions were part of their strategy. Ultimately, while the court affirmed Bratcher's conviction, they thought the sentence should be reduced to thirty years instead of seventy. The decision allowed the judges to agree on many points but showed differences regarding what the final sentence should be.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-993, the appellant appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Rape by Instrumentation. In a published decision, the court decided that the failure of defense counsel to call the appellant to testify, after promising the jury he would, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, which significantly impacted the trial's fairness. The court also found that the admission of other-crimes evidence related to previous molestation was improperly admitted and prejudicial. Because of these reasons, the appellant was granted a new trial. One judge dissented, arguing that the decision to not testify was the appellant's choice and did not affect the trial's outcome.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-1145, Robert Lee Peace appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-649, Alfred Gene Ryan appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented in part. Ryan was found guilty in the District Court of Kay County, where a jury sentenced him to 20 years in prison for the rape charge and 10 years for the molestation charge, along with fines for both counts. The key points of his appeal focused on several alleged errors during his trial, including issues related to custody status during police questioning, hearsay testimony, the trial court’s handling of jury instructions, the admission of other crimes evidence, and claims of ineffective counsel. The court reviewed all the claims made by Ryan, including whether the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence or testimony, and whether he received a fair trial. After considering the arguments and the entire record, the court did not find any major errors that would require a reversal of his conviction. The court stated that Ryan was not in custody when he spoke to law enforcement, which meant that his statements to them were properly admitted. They also ruled that the hearsay testimony from child victims was allowable and did not violate Ryan’s rights. The court acknowledged that there were instances of improper evidence admitted concerning other crimes but determined that these did not significantly impact the verdict concerning his guilt. Regarding jury instructions, the court agreed that Ryan should have been informed about the 85% rule, which might have affected the length of time he would serve. Therefore, they modified his sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively, leading to a total time served being lessened. Overall, while the court affirmed the convictions, it recognized certain shortcomings in how the trial was conducted which justified modifying how the sentences were structured.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-522, Eric Matthew Nimmo appealed his conviction for Robbery by Force. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Mr. Nimmo's conviction but modified his sentence from thirty-five years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Eric Nimmo was found guilty by a jury in the Tulsa County District Court. After a trial that lasted three days, the jury decided that he should serve a long prison sentence along with a fine. He felt that many things went wrong during his trial, and he brought eight issues to the appeals court. First, he claimed that the evidence against him was not strong enough to support his conviction. The court looked closely at the evidence and decided that it was enough for a reasonable juror to conclude he was guilty. Second, he raised concerns about how the prosecutors acted during the trial, suggesting that some of their comments could be seen as unfair and might have influenced the jury's decision. The court recognized that while some comments were not appropriate, they did not believe that these issues changed the outcome of the trial. In a third point, Nimmo felt that the judge showed bias when responding to a defense objection. The court mentioned that while the judge's comments were not ideal, they were not significant enough to impact the trial's result. Nimmo's fourth point of error was about certain past crimes being mentioned during the sentencing phase of his trial. The court agreed that these past crimes should not have been brought up in that way, and it likely influenced the long sentence he received. As a result, they modified his sentence to reflect this error. Fifth, Nimmo argued that his lawyer did a poor job by not calling witnesses who could help prove he didn’t commit the robbery. The court found his lawyer's choices were based on a reasonable strategy and did not harm his case significantly. In the sixth point, Nimmo said his lawyer's admission of his past crimes during sentencing was not a good decision. However, the court felt this was part of an overall strategy that lawyers sometimes use. For his seventh claim, he said that the instructions given to the jury regarding reasonable doubt were wrong. The court ruled that the instructions were appropriate and that they followed the law. Finally, for the eighth argument, Nimmo believed that all these errors added up to deny him a fair trial, but the court did not find this compelling enough for further action. In summary, while the court upheld Nimmo's conviction, it did find a significant error in how his past crimes were handled during sentencing, leading to a reduction in his prison term.
In OCCA case No. F 2005-651, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from twelve years to ten years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Tulsa County, and the jury decided on the punishment. The appellant challenged the trial by arguing that the court made several errors. He felt that the jury was not given the correct information about how long he would have to serve of his sentence. The jury even asked about this during their discussions. The court had previously ruled that information about the eighty-five percent rule wasn't given to the jury, which the appellant argued was unfair. The court agreed that the jury should have been informed about the rule stating how much time must be served, and so they changed his sentence to ten years instead of twelve. Additionally, the appellant argued that evidence from other crimes should not have been allowed during his trial, but the court felt that this evidence was important to show his motives and did not unfairly prejudice the jury. Finally, the appellant claimed he did not receive proper assistance from his lawyer, but the court found that the lawyer's actions were considered okay under the law. Overall, the decision affirmed the conviction but made the punishment a bit less severe.
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.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-577, Marion Lewis appealed his conviction for multiple counts of serious crimes, including First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy, following a jury trial in Oklahoma County. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Marion Lewis was found guilty of several serious charges after a trial where he represented himself. He went to trial and was sentenced to life without the chance for parole for most counts and twenty years for another. He believed the court did not properly warn him about the risks of representing himself and raised concerns about his mental ability to stand trial. He also argued that the trial court did not allow him enough time to prepare his defense, which he felt hurt his case. The court found that the trial judge did not give Lewis enough time after he was allowed to represent himself just a few days before the trial started. This lack of time made it hard for him to gather witnesses and evidence that he thought were important for his defense. The court decided the denial of his request for more time was unfair and violated his rights. In the end, the court reversed Lewis's convictions and ordered a new trial, agreeing that the trial process had not been fair. However, one judge disagreed, believing that the trial court acted correctly in denying the request for more time, stating that Lewis had not shown he would have been able to present a strong defense even if he had been given more time.