In OCCA case No. S-2005-866, Matthew Ryan Wells appealed his conviction for several charges including trafficking in illegal drugs and use of a weapon in commission of a crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court, which had sustained Wells' motion to quash the information, meaning that the charges against him could not move forward. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1182, Bryan Matthew Carroll appealed his conviction for multiple offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse some of his convictions and modify others. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty by a jury of several charges. These charges included Assault and/or Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, among others. The jury sentenced him to various fines and jail time for these offenses. Carroll argued that he was unfairly punished for some offenses and that there was not enough evidence to support the charges against him, especially for the more serious ones like Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He claimed his rights were violated and that he did not receive fair representation from his lawyer. In looking at Carroll's appeal, the court decided to dismiss some of the judgments against him, specifically the Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charges. The court found that the evidence did not convincingly support the Assault charge and there was not enough proof that Carroll was intending to use the paraphernalia for drugs. For the Attempting to Elude charge, the court noted that Carroll was also convicted for not stopping at a stop sign while trying to escape from the police, which should not happen according to legal rules. The court ruled that one of the offenses was covered by the other, and that means Carroll was unfairly charged twice for one action. As for other charges, the court changed the punishment for speeding because the jury was not correctly informed about the possible penalties. They modified Carroll's sentence for that charge but kept the other sentences intact, concluding that they were fair based on what happened. In summary, Carroll's case showed that even when someone is charged with multiple offenses, it's important for the legal system to follow rules to ensure fairness. The court made changes that reflected these principles, showing that justice is essential in every case.
In OCCA case No. PR-2006-120, a petitioner appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (methamphetamine) and driving without seatbelts. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's request for relief in part and deny it in part. One judge dissented. The case began when the petitioner was charged with possessing methamphetamine and driving without a seatbelt. She initially agreed to a plea deal with the state, which involved accepting guilt for the drug charge and a fine for the seatbelt violation. However, when the petitioner refused to follow through with the state’s conditions for the plea, she attempted to enter a non-negotiated or blind guilty plea. The judge refused to accept her blind plea and insisted she proceed to trial, stating she did not have an absolute right to plead guilty. The petitioner believed she should be allowed to enter her guilty plea without the state’s conditions. This disagreement led her to file a petition with the court seeking orders to either allow her to plead guilty or to prevent the judge from forcing her to go to trial. After reviewing the facts of the case, the court found that the petitioner had a clear legal right to have her guilty plea accepted if it met the necessary legal requirements. The court noted that it was a mistake for the judge to reject her plea without evaluating whether it was voluntary and if there was a factual basis for it. The court granted part of the petitioner’s request by directing the district court judge to conduct a hearing on her blind plea and accept it if it correctly fulfilled the legal standards. However, the court denied her request to have her plea regarding the seatbelt violation accepted, as that plea required the judge’s approval. The dissenting judge expressed concerns about whether the petitioner had truly shown that she was being harmed by the trial court's refusal to accept her plea, suggesting that any challenges to a guilty plea rejection should typically be taken up in direct appeals rather than with this type of petition. The dissenting judge also supported the trial judge's discretion, arguing that the right to a jury trial must be upheld. In summary, the court ruled that the petitioner should be given a chance to enter her guilty plea under the law, but that her plea regarding the seatbelt violation did not have to be accepted.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-619, Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Two judges dissented. Ralph Jones was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years in prison. He believed that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he knew he had the drug, claiming that just having drug paraphernalia was not good enough for a conviction. When reviewing the case, the court found that there was a problem during the trial. Jones was only allowed to use three of his five chances to challenge potential jurors, which is not what the law says should happen. This was seen as a violation of his rights, and the court ruled that he should get a new trial. The final decision was to throw out Jones’s conviction and start the trial over again. Two judges disagreed with this decision, arguing that the appeals court should only look at issues that were raised during the trial and that the evidence actually supported Jones’s conviction. They felt that giving him another chance could lead to unnecessary complications since he might not even want to go through a new trial.
In OCCA case No. S-2005-657, the State of Oklahoma appealed a ruling related to two individuals who were accused of having marijuana with the intent to distribute, along with drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that excluded certain evidence. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The police received a report that someone smelled marijuana coming from a house. When an officer arrived at the scene, he also smelled the marijuana and entered the home without permission. He searched a few areas and found marijuana and a pipe. The two accused individuals stated that the police officer had no right to enter or search their home. Eventually, a search warrant was issued based on the officer's report of the smell of marijuana. However, during a preliminary hearing, it was decided that the initial search was illegal because the officer did not have permission to enter the house and there were no emergency reasons to justify his actions. The judge in the lower court decided that the evidence collected from the illegal search could not be used to support the search warrant, meaning that the search warrant itself could not stand. Since there was no valid reason to issue the search warrant without the evidence from the initial illegal search, the evidence collected after the warrant was also thrown out. The state argued that the smell of marijuana alone could be enough to justify the search warrant. Still, the judge said that strong evidence was needed and that the warrant was based too much on the illegal findings from the first search. This led the court to agree that the evidence against the accused individuals could not be used, affirming the earlier decision made by the lower court. In short, the court ruled that because the initial search was illegal, it weakened the case against the accused, and thus their evidence should not be included.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1080, Kirk Douglas Byrd appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug and Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but modified the sentence for the DUI charge to ten years. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-812, Duckett appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of A Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Duckett's suspended sentence and instructed the court to dismiss the case, leading to Duckett's immediate release. One judge dissented. The case began when Duckett entered a guilty plea for possessing crack cocaine and was given a three-year suspended sentence. However, in 2002, the state wanted to revoke this sentence due to alleged violations of probation. Duckett was arrested and confessed to violating the terms of his probation in early 2003, but his sentencing was postponed several times. When Duckett failed to appear for a hearing in June 2004, a warrant for his arrest was issued. After being taken into custody, he had his sentencing hearing on July 26, 2004, during which the court revoked his suspended sentence due to his absence at the earlier hearing. Duckett appealed this decision, arguing that the court could not revoke his probation after his three-year term had expired. The court agreed with Duckett's argument, stating that the District Court did not have the authority to sentence him after the probation had ended. Although the court had taken steps to help him, such as continuously supervising his probation, the law does not allow for a suspended sentence to be extended indefinitely. The ruling emphasized that once the suspended sentence expired, the District Court lost its power to revoke it. Therefore, the court reversed the earlier decision and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case, allowing Duckett to be released.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-729, Candy Mae Easton appealed her conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but affirmed her conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug. One judge dissented concerning the reversal of the manufacturing charge. Candy Mae Easton was on trial after neighbors reported a strong smell related to methamphetamine coming from the home of her co-defendant. Officers investigating found evidence that suggested meth was being made in the house, including white powder and other materials commonly used to manufacture meth. Easton admitted to using meth, but she said she did not help make it. The court examined whether there was enough proof to show that Easton helped her co-defendant in making the drug. The majority opinion stated that just knowing about the manufacturing and using the drug doesn’t mean she encouraged or assisted in making it. The appellate court mentioned that encouragement must be shown by some action or words, which were not present in Easton’s case. As a result, Easton’s conviction for manufacturing meth was reversed, meaning she was found not guilty of that charge. However, the conviction for unlawful possession was upheld because her sentence and fine were within the legal limits and were not seen as too harsh. The dissenting opinion believed there was enough evidence to support that Easton aided in the manufacturing, and thus would have kept her conviction for that charge. The judges' roles were discussed in terms of assessing evidence and the credibility of decisions made by the trial judge, emphasizing that it isn’t their place to change those factual decisions based on their opinions. Ultimately, the case was sent back to be corrected only in terms of the record regarding the possession conviction, while the manufacturing conviction was dismissed.
In OCCA case No. RE-2004-435, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and return the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In the original case, the appellant pleaded guilty to three counts involving illegal drugs. The judge sentenced him to several years in prison but suspended the sentences with conditions, including not using drugs or not violating any laws. Later, the state asked to revoke his suspended sentences because he was arrested for new drug-related crimes. The state claimed he broke the terms of his probation. During a hearing, the appellant's probation officer testified but did not have direct evidence against the appellant, like a confession or firsthand knowledge, which led to questions about the evidence's reliability. The judge revoked the appellant's probation, but the appeals court found the evidence insufficient to support this decision. They explained that the state did not provide enough solid proof that the appellant committed new crimes and emphasized the importance of the right to confront witnesses when proving probation violations. As a result, the court reversed the revocation decision and ordered the case to be sent back for further proceedings.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-1334, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including unlawful possession of a controlled substance, possession of a firearm, and assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari in part and deny it in part. One judge dissented. Rodney Taylor Glenn faced charges in three different cases in the District Court of Washington County. He made a plea agreement, which led to some charges being dropped in return for him waiving a preliminary hearing and pleading no contest. The judge accepted his plea and sentenced him to several years in prison for each of his charges. Later, Glenn wanted to withdraw his plea because he believed there were issues with how it was handled. He argued that the court did not check if he was mentally capable of understanding his plea, that there was not enough evidence for some of the charges, and that he was misinformed about the possible punishments. Glenn also claimed that he did not get the benefit of his agreement and that he did not have effective help from his lawyer. The court reviewed Glenn's arguments. It concluded that Glenn was competent to enter his plea and that there was enough evidence for most of the charges. However, the court agreed that there was not sufficient evidence to support one of the assault charges, which meant Glenn could withdraw his plea for that specific charge. Additionally, Glenn was correctly advised about some of the punishments but misinformed about others, which led to the decision to let him withdraw his plea on those counts as well. The court ultimately decided to keep some of the sentences but allowed Glenn to withdraw his plea for the assault charges and the possession of a firearm while committing a felony based on the errors found. In conclusion, the judgment and sentence were affirmed in part and reversed in part. Thus, Glenn was allowed to change his plea on certain counts, while other parts of his case remained unchanged.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-1266, James Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including manufacturing methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented on the sentencing issue. Hudson was found guilty of five charges related to drug manufacturing and possession, among others. He was sentenced to a total of over twenty years in prison, which he appealed, arguing that some of his convictions should not stand, and that he did not receive fair treatment during his trial. The court reviewed his claims one by one. They found that the law allowed him to be convicted for both manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine. The search of his home, which was supposed to be within the law, was ruled proper. It was also concluded that Hudson’s statements to police were made without pressure, which meant they were valid as evidence. When looking at the amount of evidence presented at trial, the court determined there was enough for the jury to find him guilty of all counts. They acknowledged that Hudson’s attorney made a mistake by not asking for a new judge who had shown bias against Hudson in a public statement. However, the court believed this did not affect the jury’s decision regarding guilt. Regarding the issue of whether evidence of other crimes should be admitted, the court decided the evidence was related to the charges against Hudson and was rightfully included in the trial. In conclusion, while Hudson's convictions were upheld, the court changed his sentences to be served at the same time, which means he would spend less time in prison overall. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about the sentencing.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-336, Joe Lynn Paddock appealed his conviction for several crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture drugs and possession of drugs with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss one conviction due to lack of evidence but upheld the other convictions and modified some sentences. One judge dissented on the sentencing decision.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-136, Justin Lyle Thomas appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute, Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug, and Operating a Motor Vehicle Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision regarding his ability to withdraw certain guilty pleas. One judge dissented. Thomas had pleaded guilty to several charges and was supposed to complete a drug court program to avoid sentencing. However, after not doing well in the program, the state wanted to sentence him. He asked to withdraw his guilty pleas for some of the counts, and the court agreed to let him withdraw his pleas for two of the charges but denied his request for the other two. Thomas argued that he had not been properly informed about the possible sentences for the charges. The court found that there was a mistake about the punishment ranges, specifically for the drug charges. They ruled that this mistake affected his decision to plead guilty, and because of this, he should have been allowed to withdraw his pleas for all counts. The court decided in favor of Thomas and said the lower court had made a mistake when it denied his request. However, one judge disagreed and believed that the incorrect information did not really influence Thomas’s decision to plead guilty to the other charges.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-455, Janis Gale McAbee appealed her conviction for the unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. McAbee had originally pled guilty to the charges and received a five-year suspended sentence, which meant she would not have to serve time in prison if she followed the rules of her probation. However, the state claimed that she broke those rules by committing new crimes. A petition was filed to revoke her suspended sentence, and during the hearing, the judge decided that the evidence collected by the police could still be used in the revocation hearing even if it may have been obtained inappropriately. The judge believed that the police did not act so wrongly that it would be shocking or unfair. After hearing the evidence, the judge found that McAbee had violated her probation. Even though she argued that the evidence was not enough to support the revocation, the court disagreed and said that what was found was enough to prove she broke the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep McAbee's sentence as it was but ordered a correction to the records to show that one of her sentences should actually have been one year instead of five years. The court affirmed the lower court's decision while making this correction.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-86 and RE-2003-87, Christi Marie Farris appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but remanded the case to the district court to order that the sentences be served concurrently. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-1561, Joe Edward Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Dangerous Drug and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the life sentence for the drug charge but modified the sentence for the weapons charge to two years. One judge dissented. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a crime. He was originally sentenced to a long prison term. However, he argued that he did not agree to a key part of his sentencing, which led to a re-sentencing trial being ordered. At this new trial, the jury decided he should have a life sentence for the drug charge and a ten-year sentence for the weapon charge. Stratmoen’s appeal brought up several points. He said the court shouldn’t have let a jury re-sentence him just for this non-death penalty case. He also argued that he never truly agreed to his earlier convictions being used against him before. Stratmoen claimed that testimony from police officers during his trial was unfair and that the way the prosecutor spoke about parole led to a wrong verdict. Lastly, he felt that a life sentence for having drugs was too harsh for his situation. After looking at everything, the court thought that Stratmoen's sentence for possessing a weapon should be reduced to two years since it couldn’t be increased further. They agreed that the trial court was right in letting a jury examine whether he had prior convictions but pointed out that they had to correct some details about his life sentence, making sure it indicated he could be eligible for parole. In conclusion, while his life sentence was upheld, it was important to ensure that the legal documents accurately reflected the possibility of parole, providing him with a fair opportunity for the future.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-613, Muhajir A. Sango appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, after Former Conviction of Two or More Drug Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Sango was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that evidence showing his gang affiliation was irrelevant and unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that his lawyer did not properly object to this evidence, which made his legal representation ineffective. Lastly, he believed the jury was given incorrect information about his possible sentence. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that there was an error in the jury instructions concerning the punishment range for habitual drug offenders. The court concluded that the jury was mistakenly told that the minimum sentence was twenty years instead of the correct ten years. Despite agreeing with some of Sango's concerns, the court found that the introduction of gang-related evidence did not significantly impact the jury's decision, and the arguments about ineffective assistance did not hold up. As a result, his conviction was upheld, but the court mandated that the sentencing should be redone to correct the earlier mistake.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for various crimes related to drug possession and firearm offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for selling drugs. One judge dissented and suggested that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.
In OCCA case No. C-2002-1188, the petitioner appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions and sentences but reversed one specific conviction for maintaining a vehicle used for illegal activities. One judge dissented, suggesting that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. The petitioner had pled guilty to various charges in three different cases. These included serious charges like possession of drugs with the intent to distribute, gun-related offenses, and other crimes. After he was sentenced, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he did not understand what he was doing when he pled guilty. The court held a hearing to consider this request but denied it. The sentences the petitioner received added up to a very long total of 223 years, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, the petitioner presented several reasons he felt the court made mistakes. First, he argued that there wasn't enough evidence for some of his guilty pleas to be accepted. After looking into the facts, the court disagreed on some counts, saying there was enough evidence for certain guilty pleas, but accepted the petitioner’s claim that he should not have been convicted for maintaining a vehicle for drug activities. In another part of his argument, the petitioner claimed that his punishments were too much and that he did not understand his pleas. The court found that he did understand what he was doing and therefore, his guilty pleas were valid. Overall, the court upheld most of the judgments but agreed with the petitioner on one specific charge, reversing that conviction. The court ordered the case to go back for further actions that align with its decision. One judge thought sentences should be served together instead of separately, showing that there were different opinions even in the court's decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-552, Jack Leroy Helms appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Obscene Pictures of Minors. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Helms's conviction but to modify his sentence to two years of imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Helms was tried by a jury and found guilty of having illegal pictures of minors. The trial took place in Jefferson County. The jury recommended a 15-year sentence, and the trial judge sentenced Helms accordingly. However, Helms argued that he should have been charged under a different law that applied specifically to possession of child pornography, which would result in a shorter sentence. The court agreed that Helms should have been charged under the more specific statute, but they affirmed his conviction. They also decided that his imprisonment sentence should be reduced to two years instead of the original 15 years. Helms raised several issues during his appeal, claiming that he was unfairly treated during the trial, that there wasn't enough evidence against him, and that his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to uphold his conviction, as there were witnesses and online activities that indicated he had access to the illegal pictures. In the end, Helms's conviction was upheld, but changes were made to the judgment to show he was convicted under the correct law and his sentence was adjusted to be less severe. The decision allowed some correction but ultimately found in favor of the prosecution's case against Helms.
In OCCA case No. RE-2002-523, Lonnie George Baker, Jr., appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation but modified the length of the sentence. One judge dissented. Baker had pleaded guilty to possessing illegal drugs and was given a five-year suspended sentence, which meant he wouldn't go to jail unless he broke the rules. However, he violated the terms of his suspension, leading the state to file a petition to revoke it. After a hearing, the judge decided that Baker had indeed broken the rules and revoked his suspended sentence. Initially, the judge announced Baker should be locked up for 4 years and 4 months. But later, Baker argued that this was incorrect because he had less time left to serve. The state agreed with him on that point. They also discussed extra time Baker spent in a mental hospital, but the court decided he wasn't entitled to credit for those days. Ultimately, the court agreed that Baker should go to jail, but they changed his sentence from 4 years and 4 months to 4 years and 90 days.
In OCCA case No. RE 2002-0993, a person appealed their conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the person's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when the person pled guilty in January 2000 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant they'd stay out of prison as long as they followed certain rules. However, in July 2002, the state claimed the person broke the rules by testing positive for methamphetamine during a drug test. During the hearing to decide if the suspended sentence should be revoked, the person's probation officer said that the test showed the person had methamphetamine in their system. The person then explained they had many health problems, including severe joint issues, high blood pressure, and a history of cancer. They also used a cough syrup prescribed by a doctor, which potentially contained ingredients that could cause a positive drug test. The probation officer, when asked, said he couldn’t be sure if the cough syrup was the reason for the positive test results. Because of this uncertainty about the cause of the positive test, the court found there wasn't enough proof that the person had broken probation rules. As a result, the court reversed the previous decision to revoke the suspended sentence, meaning the person did not have to serve that part of their sentence. The court instructed the lower court to dismiss the application to revoke.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-356, Heidi Renee Pitt appealed her conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction. One judge dissented. Heidi Pitt was found guilty by a jury of having methamphetamine. The event took place in Pushmataha County, where she had been sentenced to two years in prison, with the first six months to be served. However, she appealed this decision, arguing that there wasn't enough evidence to prove she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. During the trial, the state did not provide any proof that Heidi knew about the drugs or had control over them. The drugs were actually discovered when her co-defendant threw them on the ground during his arrest. Because there was no indication that Heidi had any knowledge of or control over the drugs, the court found that the evidence was not enough to support her conviction. After looking at all the evidence, the court decided that Heidi's conviction should be overturned and sent back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge disagreed and felt there was enough evidence to support Heidi's conviction.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-175, James Dale Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one of the counts. One judge dissented. Vaughn was found guilty of several charges after a police search of his home revealed drugs and a firearm. The police had a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant who claimed Vaughn was selling methamphetamine. During the search, officers discovered methamphetamine in various amounts, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. Vaughn argued that the search warrant was improperly issued because it relied on hearsay from the informant that was not verified. The court found that there was enough information to justify the warrant and allowed the evidence found during the search to be admitted in court. Additionally, Vaughn claimed the trial court should have required the state to reveal the informant's identity. However, the court decided that the informant's identity was not relevant to Vaughn's defense, and so did not need to be disclosed. Finally, Vaughn argued that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishment for one of his charges. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect and reduced the sentence for that particular charge, while upholding the convictions for the other charges. Thus, the overall decision allowed the convictions to stand, but changed the punishment for one count.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-465, Tashiro Rudy Tillman appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute and Obstructing an Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction on the drug charge but vacated the sentence for that charge, requiring resentencing. The conviction for obstructing an officer was upheld. One judge dissented.