In OCCA case No. F-2004-198, Clonnie A. Layman appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided that Layman was entitled to a new trial because the trial court made a mistake by allowing the exclusion of a minority juror without a valid reason. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1252, Reed appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years. One judge dissented. Reed faced charges including first-degree murder and possession of a firearm, but the jury could not agree on the murder charge, leading to a mistrial for that count. The state decided not to pursue one of the firearm charges. The jury convicted Reed on the remaining firearm possession charge and recommended a life sentence. On appeal, Reed argued that the trial court made a mistake by not declaring a mistrial for each charge after the jury couldn't reach a verdict on the murder. He believed his life sentence was excessive and went against the Constitution. The court reviewed the facts and concluded that the trial court acted within its rights when it denied Reed's request for a mistrial. However, they found that a life sentence for the firearm possession was too harsh under the circumstances. As a result, they changed Reed's sentence to twenty years in prison instead of life. The final decision was to keep Reed's conviction, but to lessen his punishment.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-673, Booker James Johnson, Jr., appealed his conviction for procuring a minor to participate in the preparation of obscene material and possession of child pornography. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences. One judge dissented. Johnson was found guilty of two serious crimes by a jury in Tulsa County. The jury decided he should go to prison for twenty years for the first conviction and pay a fine of $25,000 for the second. He didn't agree with this and appealed. Johnson claimed there were several problems during his trial. First, he said it was unfair to make him defend against both charges in the same trial. He believed that separate trials would have been better. He also argued that the instructions given to the jury about how to decide his punishment were wrong because they used the wrong law for his first charge. Johnson said he should only serve ten years for that charge instead of twenty based on this mistake. For the second charge, Johnson claimed he should have been charged under a different statute that better fit the crime. As a result, the fine for this charge should have been lower, at $5,000 instead of $25,000. Johnson also argued that his right to a fair trial was damaged by a statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments, suggesting that both charges should be considered together. He felt that this was unfair and went against his rights. Additionally, Johnson said his lawyer did not help him enough, which made his trial unfair. Finally, he complained that he did not have access to important evidence needed for his defense. The court reviewed all of Johnson's claims. They decided that it was not a big mistake for the trial judge to keep both charges together. However, they did agree that the jury was instructed incorrectly about the first charge, and thus modified the punishment to ten years. For the second charge, they recognized that Johnson should have been charged under a more specific statute, so they also corrected the fine to $5,000. In the end, the court kept Johnson's conviction for both crimes but changed his sentence to ten years in prison for the first charge and a $5,000 fine for the second charge, with some paperwork corrections needed to officially note these changes.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-858, Esther Servin appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her petition to withdraw her guilty plea based on the interests of justice. One judge dissented. Servin had pled guilty to two counts of Child Neglect, which means she was charged with not taking care of her child. A judge sentenced her to a long time in prison—37 years for one count and 10 years for the other. This punishment would mean she had to serve those two sentences one after the other, making a total of 47 years. After the sentencing, Servin tried to take back her guilty plea because she thought she didn’t understand what was happening during her trial. Her request was denied at first, but later, the court allowed her to appeal. In her appeal, Servin said two main things: First, she believed she didn’t enter her guilty plea in a way that was fair and understood. Second, she thought her lawyer did not help her well enough. The court looked at all the information, including the questions asked in court and the answers Servin gave. They concluded that it was right to let her withdraw her plea because it would be fair to do so. The dissenting judge disagreed. This judge believed that Servin’s plea was valid and that everything in court was handled well. The dissenting judge thought the sentence, even though it was long, should be kept as is because Servin had made her choices and understood her situation at the time. In summary, the court allowed Servin to withdraw her guilty plea based on fairness, while one judge felt the original plea should stand.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-484, Sam Henry Watkins appealed his conviction for Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Watkins was tried in a court without a jury and found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine. He was given a 20-year prison sentence. Watkins claimed that there were several mistakes made during his trial that should change the decision. He argued that: 1. He did not properly give up his right to have a jury trial. 2. The police illegally took evidence from him and questioned him. 3. Inappropriate evidence was used against him, which made his trial unfair. 4. He did not have good help from his lawyer. The court looked carefully at all these points and the entire situation. They concluded that Watkins did not show that he willingly gave up his right to a jury trial, which was important. The court noted that there was no proof that he understood what giving up that right meant. Therefore, this was a mistake. As for the evidence collected from Watkins, the court decided that it did not need to change the decision. The court found no error in the way the police handled the evidence during his detention. In the end, the court reversed Watkins's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. This meant that he would get another chance to defend himself against the charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2000-912, Jerry Leon McManus, Jr. appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including Kidnapping, Assault, Rape by Instrumentation, and Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his convictions on two counts to a lesser charge and change the sentences but upheld his other convictions. One judge dissented. The case started in a court in Muskogee County where McManus was accused of multiple crimes against a victim. A trial jury found him guilty of most counts after being directed that he was not guilty of a few charges. Each of the remaining charges led to a life sentence that would run at the same time. On appeal, McManus presented several arguments about why he should not have been convicted. He said the trial court did not explain the rules correctly regarding one type of crime, leading to confusion. He also argued that the court allowed some evidence about past actions of his that were not relevant to the case, and he believed this affected the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, he claimed the prosecutor made improper comments during the trial and said there wasn’t enough evidence to support his convictions for certain crimes. The court reviewed these arguments carefully. It agreed with McManus on one point: the jury should have been instructed properly about the crime of Rape by Instrumentation. Since the jury was incorrectly steered towards a greater charge, the court decided to change McManus's convictions for this specific crime to a lesser offense of Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation and adjusted his sentence to fifteen years for those two counts instead of life imprisonment. However, the court found that even though some evidence from old crimes should not have been shared, it did not change the outcome of the trial. The jury's decision was seen as just because there was enough solid evidence presented against McManus. The court also thought that despite various issues raised during the trial, those did not combine to make the trial unfair or warrant a full reversal of all convictions. In summary, while the court changed some aspects regarding the Rape by Instrumentation, they affirmed the rest of the convictions and sentences for McManus, deciding he would serve a reduced time for the lesser charges but still maintain his convictions for the other serious crimes.
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.
In OCCA case No. F 99-1293, #1 appealed his conviction for #4 counts of Lewd Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 counts were affirmed and #1 count was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. #0 dissented. #1, William Dean Carter, was found guilty in a jury trial after being accused of committing inappropriate acts against children. These acts happened a long time ago, but the case took a while to come to court. Carter was sentenced to several years in prison for his crimes. Carter claimed that his rights were violated during the trial. He said he should not have been charged because the time limit for bringing the case to court had passed. He also argued that the prosecution made unfair comments during the trial and that he did not get a fair chance to defend himself. The court looked closely at all the details of the case. They found that for two of the counts against Carter, the prosecution was valid, but for the other two, the time limit had expired. Because of this, those two counts were dismissed. The judges felt that the evidence against Carter was strong enough for some of the charges, even if there were some errors during the trial. In conclusion, the court said that two of Carter's convictions would stay, but the other two would be thrown out and should not continue in court.