Violation Report Archives

F-2018-269

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:October 10, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2017-1055, a person appealed their conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (Oxycodone). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant from the Pontotoc County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case started on February 18, 2014, when the appellant was charged with a drug-related crime. The appellant agreed to enter the Drug Court Program, where they could avoid prison if they completed the program successfully. If not, they could face up to ten years in prison. On April 19, 2017, the state sought to terminate the appellant from the program. They claimed the appellant had tested positive for THC, which is found in marijuana. A hearing was held, and the judge decided to terminate the appellant from Drug Court. As a result, the appellant was sentenced to ten years in prison but received credit for the time they had already spent in custody. The appellant argued three things on appeal. First, they believed the court made a mistake by kicking them out of Drug Court because there was not enough evidence of a rule violation. Second, the appellant stated that there was no written agreement outlining the rules of the Drug Court, and therefore, they should not have been terminated for breaking rules they did not know about. Lastly, the appellant claimed that since the state filed the termination application after the allowed time to participate in Drug Court had passed, the court should not have been able to terminate them. The court addressed each of these arguments. They found that the appellant never objected to the evidence showing the positive drug test, which made it hard for them to argue the judge made a mistake. The court also looked into whether the appellant had been informed about the rules and found that the evidence showed the appellant had been explained the terms and understood them. Lastly, regarding the timing of the termination, the court explained that while the timeframe for treatment had expired, the court still had the authority to terminate participation in the program before a final sentence was given. Ultimately, the appellate court agreed with the original trial court's decision to terminate the appellant from Drug Court and affirmed the ten-year sentence. One judge disagreed with the decision about the timing of the termination, believing that the court did not have the right to terminate after the set period.

RE-2004-435

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:July 15, 2005
Post category:RE

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.

J-2003-504

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:September 2, 2003
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2003-504, K.D.E. appealed his conviction for a transfer of custody. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the earlier order that transferred him from being a Youthful Offender to the Department of Corrections. The court concluded that he should stay in custody as a Youthful Offender instead. No one dissented.

F-2001-687

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, #1 appealed his conviction for #Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #the case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. #2 dissented. Summary: The appellant, a person accused of writing bad checks, entered a plea in 1995 but later faced problems with following court rules. She was supposed to pay money back for the checks she wrote, but she didn't pay all of it. Over the years, the state said she had not done what she needed to do, like meeting with a probation officer and paying fees. As a result, her sentence was changed and she spent time in jail. The appellant had two cases against her. The first case involved writing four bad checks totaling $140, but she was told to pay back over $6,000, which she felt was too much. She argued that the court should not make her pay for other checks she wasn't charged with. The second case involved her admitting guilt for a poor check and being given jail time that was suspended, meaning she wouldn't go to jail unless she misbehaved. But the state also said she didn’t follow the rules connected to this case. During the hearings, the court decided she had broken the rules, leading to her jail time and fees. The key issues in her appeal were whether she should pay restitution for other checks and whether the amounts charged were fair. The court found that the records were unclear, so they sent the case back to get more facts about how much she really owed and if she could pay it back without it being a big problem for her or her family. The court needed to figure out three main things: why she had to pay for checks she wasn't charged with, if she could pay without hardship, and the correct amount she actually owed. The other point brought up was whether the fees for being in jail were too high and if the way those fees were charged followed the law. In conclusion, the court said the lower court needs to look at these issues again to make sure everything is fair.

RE-2001-887

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.