In OCCA case No. F-2019-420, Donta Keith Davis appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate Davis's judgment and sentence, meaning he would no longer be convicted of the crimes he was charged with. The court also instructed for the case to be dismissed. One judge dissented from the majority opinion.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-308, Deondrea Deshawn Thompson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to robbery and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury for several crimes, including robbery with a firearm, attempted robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years for the robbery counts and seven years for the other counts, with the sentences to run consecutively. Thompson raised multiple issues on appeal, including claims that he did not receive a fair trial because crucial evidence was kept from him, racial discrimination occurred during jury selection, and that the trial court made several errors in admitting evidence. The court addressed these issues one by one. It found that the trial court did not err in keeping the name of a confidential informant from Thompson since it was not shown to be necessary for his defense. The court also found that the State's reasons for excluding certain jurors were race-neutral and did not indicate discriminatory intent. Regarding the trial court's questioning of jurors, the court concluded that it did not improperly influence the jury. As for evidence related to cell phone records collected without a warrant, the court determined that the police acted in good faith based on laws that existed at the time. Thompson argued that other testimony during the trial unfairly presented him as having committed other bad acts, but the court found no abuse of discretion in how the trial was handled. The court also concluded that the trial court's decision not to give certain jury instructions on eyewitness identification was within its discretion since the identification was firm enough in this case. Thompson's claim about having multiple cases tried together was also rejected, as the court noted that the robberies were similar in nature and occurred close together in time. Finally, the court ruled that his separate firearm possession conviction did not violate double jeopardy laws. In summary, the court affirmed Thompson's conviction, saying that none of the claimed errors were significant enough to harm his case.
**Case Summary: Shelley Jo Duncan's Appeal** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Judge:** Rowland, Judge **Case Number:** CF-2017-31 **Verdict:** Affirmed **Background:** Shelley Jo Duncan, a teacher, was charged with Lewd Acts with a Child. Her trial was conducted in Cleveland County after a change of venue due to pre-trial publicity. Duncan was sentenced to six years in prison in accordance with the jury's recommendation. **Issues Raised on Appeal:** 1. The denial of a motion to strike two jurors for cause. 2. Claims of improper commentary on her right to remain silent. 3. The credibility of the alleged victim and sufficiency of evidence for conviction. 4. Admission of other crimes evidence regarding past drug use. 5. Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. 6. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. 7. Challenge to the excessive nature of her sentence. 8. Cumulative errors affecting the fairness of the trial. **Findings:** 1. **Jurors for Cause:** The court did not err in denying the motion to strike jurors S.M. and J.S. Duncan did not preserve her claim regarding J.S. since a peremptory challenge was successfully used to remove her from the jury. 2. **Right to Remain Silent:** Testimony regarding the investigation did not comment on Duncan’s post-arrest silence. Any potential error was cured by the court's action in sustaining objections. 3. **Credibility of Victim:** The court found the victim's testimony credible and sufficient, supporting the conviction based on the preponderance of evidence, even without corroboration. 4. **Other Crimes Evidence:** Duncan’s argument related to drug use was denied as she had introduced this evidence herself. Inviting error prevented relief. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Duncan could not demonstrate that her counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced her case sufficiently to impact the outcome. 6. **Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Claims of improper comments were denied, as the prosecutor’s comments did not exceed the acceptable limits of argument during closing statements. 7. **Excessive Sentence:** The six-year sentence was within statutory limits and did not shock the conscience of the court, thus it was upheld. 8. **Cumulative Effect of Errors:** The court found no cumulative errors that would necessitate a new trial or modification of the sentence, as no individual error was identified. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. Duncan was denied relief on all issues raised in her appeal, with the court finding no significant errors affecting her right to a fair trial. **Access the full opinion:** [Download PDF of the Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1267_1734782177.pdf)
In OCCA case No. F-2018-446, Byron Craig Herd appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Byron Craig Herd was found guilty by a jury for breaking into someone's home. The court sentenced him to life in prison because he had a history of other convictions. During the trial, Herd's defense claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly, which made it hard for him to get a fair trial. Herd argued two main points in his appeal. First, he said the prosecutor made the trial unfair by trying to make the jury feel sorry for the victims. The prosecutor did this by asking the jury about their feelings as potential victims of a burglary, which led to emotional comments during the trial. Secondly, Herd believed his life sentence was too harsh. The court looked carefully at the trial and the evidence. They noted that while some of the prosecutor's comments may have been too emotional, the evidence against Herd was very strong. There were recordings of him inside the victims' house, and he was caught shortly after the crime. The court concluded that, despite some mistakes made by the prosecutor, these did not significantly affect the fairness of the trial because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. They also determined that Herd's sentence was appropriate given his past crimes and the seriousness of his current crime. In the end, the court denied Herd’s appeal, meaning he would stay in prison for life.
This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the case of Donald Ray Morrow. The key points of the opinion are as follows: 1. **Case Background**: Donald Ray Morrow was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary, second-degree burglary, and larceny of an automobile in Custer County. He received a concurrent sentencing of fifteen years for the first-degree burglary, four years for the second-degree burglary, and six years for larceny. 2. **Propositions of Error**: Morrow raised two main arguments on appeal: - **Proposition One**: He claimed the trial court erred by allowing a juror who had a social acquaintance with a prosecution witness to remain on the panel. Upon examination, the juror stated that she could set aside any prior knowledge and decide based solely on the evidence presented. The court found no actual bias or harm and denied the request for a mistrial. - **Proposition Two**: Morrow argued that his sentence did not properly reflect credit for time served. The court agreed that an order was necessary to ensure that the credit for time served is accurately recorded in the judgment. 3. **Decision**: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Morrow's convictions but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that he is to receive credit for time served. 4. **Outcome**: The mandate was ordered to be issued upon the filing of the decision, and all participating judges concurred with the opinion. For those interested in the full legal document, a link to download the complete opinion in PDF format is provided.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1099, Willie Donnell Jackson appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree-Victim Unconscious. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jackson's conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Willie Donnell Jackson was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime involving a victim who was unconscious. The jury suggested that he spend life in prison without the chance to get out, but the trial judge decided to give him a chance for parole after a long time instead. Jackson didn't agree with this decision and said there were errors made during the trial that affected his rights. Jackson raised five main arguments on appeal. First, he said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial, which made it unfair. He claimed this had a cumulative effect and harmed his chance for a fair trial. Second, he thought the judge didn't give the jury the right instructions, which was another error. The third point was about his lawyers not helping him enough, meaning that he didn't get the proper support he needed during the trial. Fourth, Jackson believed that the prosecutor's actions led to a sentence that was too harsh compared to what happened. Finally, his last argument was that all the mistakes added up to deny him a fair trial and the legal protections he should have received. After looking at everything presented during the appeal, the judges decided there were no significant errors that would change the outcome of the trial. They did not agree with Jackson's claims, concluding that his trial was fair. As a result, they upheld the original decision and affirmed his sentence, meaning Jackson must serve a long time in prison. The judges, in concise language, rejected all of Jackson's claims, confirming that he did not prove that any errors affected the fairness of his trial or the severity of his sentence, leading to the final ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-531, Joseph Green Stoker appealed his conviction for Rape by Instrumentation (Count 1) and Lewd Molestation (Count 2). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court, meaning Stoker would serve ten years on each count, with the sentences served one after the other. One judge dissented. Stoker argued that he was not allowed to present a proper defense because his witnesses were not allowed to testify. The court found that the trial judge was correct in excluding the evidence because Stoker did not follow the proper legal steps to get those witnesses into the trial. Stoker also claimed that the prosecutor acted unfairly, which made it hard for him to have a fair trial. The court looked at previous cases and decided that what the prosecutor did was not harmful enough to change the outcome of Stoker's trial. Another point made by Stoker was that his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. However, the court said Stoker could not prove that this lack of help from his lawyer actually affected the outcome of the trial. Finally, Stoker complained that the trial court wrongly ordered him to pay some costs while he was still in prison. The court explained that there are laws that allow part of an inmate's earnings in prison to be used for paying court fees, so they found no error in the judge's decision. Overall, the court did not find any mistakes significant enough to affect Stoker's conviction or sentencing, so they upheld the original decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-444, Haskin appealed his conviction for child neglect and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. No one dissented. Haskin was found guilty of neglecting children and sexually abusing them. The jury gave him several long prison sentences, including ten years for each count of neglect and many decades for sexual abuse. The judge ordered these sentences to be served one after the other. Haskin raised seven main arguments against his conviction during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes that affected his rights. For example, he said that evidence was unfairly used against him, and that the trial did not follow the rules properly. He argued that a police investigator should not have gone back to his property without a warrant, and that his rights were violated in other ways as well. However, the court found that the police acted reasonably and that Haskin's claims of error did not hold up because he did not provide enough details to support them. The court carefully reviewed everything and decided there was no need to change the outcome of the trial. They ruled that Haskin's conviction and the long sentences would stand. The decision means he will serve a considerable time in prison for his actions.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-356, Elizabeth A. Jennings appealed her conviction for Permitting Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed her conviction. One judge dissented. The case took place in Tulsa County, where Jennings was found guilty of allowing child sexual abuse to happen, which is against the law. The jury decided she should go to prison for 14 years. She was very unhappy about this and wanted to challenge the ruling. Jennings raised three big points in her appeal: 1. She said the prosecutor made a wrong hypothetical question during jury selection, which is called voir dire, and that this violated her rights. 2. She also argued that a lot of evidence was shown about her co-defendant's sexual misconduct, which she thought made it hard for her to get a fair sentence. 3. Lastly, she complained that the judge didn't tell the jury that she would have to register as a sex offender after her conviction, which she thought was an important piece of information. The court looked at everything carefully, including the evidence, the transcripts, and the arguments from both sides. It decided that Jennings did not deserve any relief from her conviction based on her arguments. For the first point, the court said that the prosecutor's question was okay. It was meant to see if jurors could be fair and follow the law without making decisions before hearing all the evidence. In the second point, the court agreed that the evidence about the co-defendant was relevant and helped to show Jennings' knowledge of the situation. The court found that this evidence was not unfairly hurtful to her case. On the third point, the court decided that it was not wrong for the judge to skip giving out the information about sex offender registration because it wasn't necessary for the case. In the end, the court upheld Jennings' sentence of 14 years in prison. The judges considered all the arguments but concluded that everything was handled correctly during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2016-549, Jerome Deshone Hopkins appealed his conviction for Placing Bodily Fluid on a Government Employee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jerome deshone Hopkins was found guilty by a jury for a crime related to putting bodily fluid on a government employee. This happened in the District Court of Muskogee County. The jury said he should go to prison for ten years, and the court agreed to give him credit for time he already served. Hopkins didn't think the trial was fair, and he told the court why. He raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he believed the trial court didn’t help him understand how to represent himself. Second, he said there were irrelevant details brought up during the trial that hurt his chances of a fair decision. Third, he mentioned that some actions by the prosecutors were unfair and made the trial unjust for him. He also claimed that mentioning his past felonies using suspended sentences made it harder for him to have a fair trial. Additionally, Hopkins felt that wearing shorts made jurors see him in an unfavorable light, and that being restrained in court was also unfair because it could sway the jurors' opinions of him. He said he wasn’t allowed to have good representation during the trial and believed all these factors together made the trial unfair. The court looked carefully at everything that happened. They found that the trial judge didn’t properly explain to Hopkins what self-representation meant. The court agreed that there should have been a clear warning about the risks of representing oneself without a lawyer. Also, they acknowledged that Hopkins was restrained in a way that was visible to jurors, which could affect how they viewed him. Given these issues, the court decided that Hopkins’s conviction should not stand and that he should have a new trial with proper legal counsel or a better understanding of representing himself if he chooses to do so. The court emphasized that the mistakes made could not be brushed aside as harmless because the right to legal representation is very crucial in ensuring a fair trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-545, Jimmy Dale Stone appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand his convictions for a new trial. One judge dissented. Jimmy was found guilty by a jury on several counts of lewd molestation involving children. He was sentenced to a total of eight years in prison, with some of the sentences running one after the other and one running at the same time as another. He had to serve a majority of his sentence before he could be considered for parole. On appeal, Jimmy raised several important points. He argued that the judge didn’t explain all the important parts of the law about lewd molestation to the jury. He believed the evidence used against him wasn’t enough to prove he had done anything wrong. He claimed that the jury was influenced by people who talked about the case before it started. He felt he was not given a fair chance at trial because of things the prosecutor said about the victims. Also, he said he should have had money for an expert witness to help prove his side. He believed that presenting other crimes as evidence was unfair. Finally, he argued that all these mistakes together affected the fairness of his trial. The main issue that the court found was a big mistake in how the jury was instructed about the law. There are specific things that must be proven to convict someone of lewd molestation. To be found guilty, it must be shown that the defendant knowingly did something wrong and that they intended to do it. This was not explained correctly to the jury during the trial. The court found that some parts of the legal instructions given did not include important elements needed to prove the case. Although there was an argument about whether this error was harmful, the court decided it was serious enough to affect the outcome of the trial. They concluded that omitting the requirement that the defendant acted knowingly and intentionally could have changed how the jury viewed the evidence and questions raised during the trial. Since the evidence against him was not overwhelming enough to guarantee he was guilty regardless of these instructions, the decision was made to reverse the conviction. Because of this significant error, the court said that Jimmy should get a new trial where the jury would be properly instructed on the law. The other issues he raised in his appeal were not discussed because the main error already warranted a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-622, Dewayne Edward Kemp appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Felony Murder but vacated the conviction for First Degree Burglary due to double jeopardy. One judge dissented. Kemp and two accomplices attempted to burglarize a home when the homeowner shot one of the accomplices fatally and injured Kemp. During his time in jail, Kemp made incriminating statements on recorded phone calls. Kemp's appeal included several arguments. He claimed that the state wrongly used hypothetical questions during jury selection, which he said made it difficult to have a fair trial. However, the court found these questions helpful for understanding the law and ruled against him. He also argued that he should have been allowed to present a statement made by a co-defendant, claiming that he was the one who planned the burglary. But since Kemp could not show that this statement would prove his innocence, the court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude it. Kemp raised concerns about the prosecutor's choice to strike some jurors, suggesting it was based on gender. The court reviewed the reasons given by the prosecutor for these strikes and concluded that they were valid, thus rejecting Kemp's argument. Kemp pointed out that being convicted of both felony murder and burglary for the same incident was unfair and violated his rights against double jeopardy. The court agreed with this claim and voided the burglary conviction, stating that the two charges were too closely related. In summary, the court maintained Kemp's felony murder conviction but removed the burglary charge as it conflicted with double jeopardy rules.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-866, Emanuel D. Mitchell appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Mitchell's case for a trial where he may be allowed to represent himself. One judge dissented. This case began when Mitchell was found guilty of murder and conspiracy after a jury trial. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 35 years for conspiracy, along with an additional 10 years for unauthorized vehicle use. Mitchell appealed, stating four main reasons why he believed his conviction should be overturned. First, Mitchell claimed that he was not allowed to represent himself during his trial, which he argued violated his rights. He believed he could defend himself better than his attorney. However, the court denied his request for self-representation, stating that it was not in his best interest. The court should have ensured that he was fully aware of the potential risks associated with representing himself before denying his request. Second, Mitchell argued that the laws applied to him during his murder prosecution were not supported by the evidence presented. He believed his rights were violated, which would require the court to dismiss the murder charge. Third, Mitchell stated that he was not allowed to present a full defense in court, suggesting that this was an unfair violation of his rights. Finally, he claimed that his attorney did not provide effective assistance, which is a right guaranteed by law. After reviewing all the information in the case, the court found that Mitchell's first argument was valid. It concluded that the trial court had wrongly denied his request to represent himself and that this mistake warranted a reversal of his conviction. They remanded the case back to the lower court so Mitchell could exercise his right to defend himself. Although the court found that the felony-murder charge against Mitchell was valid, and that there was no error in the jury instructions about the defenses, they acknowledged that these points were not the main issue due to the ruling on self-representation. Consequently, the matter about ineffective counsel was deemed moot. The final decision was to reverse the current judgments against Mitchell and send the case back to start fresh, allowing Mitchell the opportunity to represent himself.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1062, Scott Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Phillips' conviction and sentence, but remanded the case for consideration of whether Phillips' sentence should be suspended. One judge dissented. Scott Allen Phillips was found guilty by a jury of Lewd Molestation, which is a serious crime involving inappropriate touching of a child. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, during which he must serve at least 85% before he can be considered for parole. Phillips claimed there were several errors during his trial that should lead to his conviction being overturned. Phillips argued that the prosecutor presented too many instances of inappropriate touching without clearly stating which one he was being accused of for the charge. He also believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction. Additionally, he stated that the judge's decision not to consider a less severe punishment for him was unfair because he exercised his right to a jury trial. Phillips raised multiple issues during the appeal. The court looked at arguments closely and decided that the prosecutor's actions were correct and that they followed the law. They found that there were enough facts for the jury to conclude that Phillips had molested the child. The judges pointed out that the jury's role is to decide who they believe and what evidence to trust. Regarding the sentencing process, the judges noted that the trial judge didn't consider Phillips' request for a lesser sentence. This became important because a judge is expected to think about such requests carefully, regardless of whether the defendant went to trial. This is why the court decided to give the case back to the lower court for a fresh look at Phillips' request for a suspended sentence. Another major point Phillips raised was his concern about how the trial was handled. He asked to speak with jurors after the trial ended, hoping to gather more insight about their decision. However, the court said this was not allowed because jurors cannot discuss their deliberations or decisions after the trial is over. The court also examined the use of videotaped evidence during the trial. Phillips complained that the videos of the alleged victim’s statements should not have been shown again to the jurors while they were discussing. However, the judges felt the decision to show the videos was acceptable and did not harm Phillips' chances at a fair trial. Ultimately, the judges concluded that they would not disturb Phillips' conviction since there was sufficient evidence and no significant errors during the trial that affected the outcome. However, they did want the lower court to look again at Phillips' request for a suspension of his sentence, ensuring he had a fair chance at having that request reviewed properly. In conclusion, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence while allowing the opportunity for reconsideration regarding the potential suspension of the sentence, which shows that even in serious cases, there are processes in place to ensure fair treatment under the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-671, Cruz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Cruz was found guilty because he used a knife to attack another person. The main question was whether he acted in self-defense. The jury believed that Cruz was the aggressor and that the victim was unarmed when he was attacked. Cruz said he acted in self-defense, but the court found that the jury had enough evidence to support their decision that he did not qualify for this defense. Cruz raised several issues in his appeal. Firstly, he claimed that the evidence was not strong enough to convict him. However, the court said that the evidence was enough for a reasonable person to conclude that he was guilty without self-defense. Next, Cruz said there was a problem with how the jury was chosen and that it affected the trial. The court disagreed and said that the trial judge acted correctly when explaining how long the trial would take. Cruz also mentioned that he should have been credited for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court agreed that this was an important point but noted there was no written record of this credit. However, they decided the case should be sent back to the lower court to correct this and make sure he received proper credit. He argued about the restitution order, saying the court should have determined how much he needed to pay. The court stated there was no error because a hearing was scheduled to decide on restitution after he was released. Cruz felt that the sentence he received was too harsh and that the fee for his attorney was excessive. The court ruled that the sentence was fair considering the crime and that the attorney fee would be reviewed later to check if it needed to be lowered. Lastly, Cruz claimed all the mistakes added up to mean he did not have a fair trial. The court ruled there were no real errors, so this point did not apply. In conclusion, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence but ordered that Cruz's sentence be revised to include credit for time served.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-651, Frank Leroy Gibson appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gibson's convictions but modified his sentence on Count I to 25 years of imprisonment instead of Life. One judge dissented regarding the sentencing modification. Gibson was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing drug paraphernalia after a police search of his home. The jury considered various pieces of evidence, including burned pseudoephedrine blister packs and a coffee grinder with traces of the drug. Gibson argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he manufactured methamphetamine, but the court disagreed, stating sufficient circumstantial evidence pointed to his involvement. Gibson also raised concerns about how the jury was instructed regarding a question they had during sentencing discussions. He claimed the response given by the judge was improper. However, the court found that the response did not negatively affect his rights. Another point of appeal involved how the State proved Gibson’s prior felony convictions. Gibson argued that the use of certain documents to establish his past convictions was wrong. The court noted he did not object to this during the trial, so it upheld the use of the documents. Gibson also claimed that his post-arrest silence was mentioned inappropriately during the trial, which could lead to unfair treatment. The court assessed this point and found that the reference did not affect the fairness of the trial overall. Gibson argued that the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial, making inflammatory comments and expressing personal opinions. The court examined these claims and concluded that while some comments by the prosecutor were improper, they did not affect the outcome of the trial. There was also a concern about the trial judge informing the jury that Gibson's attorney was facing criminal charges. The court acknowledged the trial court's comments were poorly chosen but ultimately decided that they did not cause significant harm to Gibson’s case. The court determined that while Gibson's sentence was initially excessive due to the previous errors and comments related to the trial, the evidence of his guilt was strong, and thus reduced his sentence on the methamphetamine charge to 25 years in prison. The possession charge remained unchanged and the sentences were to run concurrently. In conclusion, while Gibson’s convictions were upheld, the court modified his sentence for fairness considering the cumulative effects of the prosecutor's statements and the judge's comments.
In OCCA case No. F-2009-998, Frye appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child, Procurement of Child for Pornography, and Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Frye's convictions and sentences but ordered the removal of a $1,000 fine that was imposed without jury authorization. One judge dissented regarding the trial court's handling of voir dire questioning.
In OCCA Case No. F-2009-404, Kassie Lakei Bills appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Kassie Lakei Bills was found guilty of murder after a jury trial in Oklahoma County. The jury sentenced her to Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole. Bills raised several complaints about how the trial was conducted. She argued that the trial court, which is responsible for making sure the trial runs smoothly, acted improperly during jury selection (called voir dire) by making comments that could have influenced the jurors. She said the court restricted her ability to question potential jurors about an important issue in her case: insanity. Further, Bills claimed that the trial court did not allow the jury to consider lesser offenses that might have been more appropriate, and that it should not have allowed certain evidence that was not relevant to the case. She felt her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, and there were too many mistakes made during the trial that affected her right to a fair trial. One key issue was the trial judge’s comments during jury selection. The judge told jurors that they should come to a decision quickly and warned them against being hard-headed. Bills argued that these comments pressured jurors to reach a verdict even if they had honest disagreements about the evidence. The court pointed out that such comments could be seen as coercive, leading to a situation where jurors would not feel free to express their true opinions. The court agreed with Bills that the trial judge’s comments were improper and could have influenced the jury's actions unfairly, which led to the decision to reverse her conviction and order a new trial. Since the case was sent back for a new trial, the court did not need to discuss the other complaints Bills raised about her trial or her request for a hearing regarding her lawyer's performance. In conclusion, Bills' conviction was overturned, and she was granted a new beginning in court, where she may have a chance to present her case fairly.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-1199, Cody Robert Grenemyer appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentences to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for two counts. One judge dissented. Grenemyer was found guilty of committing serious sexual crimes against his daughters, including rape and lewd molestation. The abuse happened over a period of time and was described by multiple victims. Despite Grenemyer's denial of the allegations, the testimony of his daughters was consistent and compelling enough for the jury to convict him. During the trial, Grenemyer wanted to introduce evidence that the younger victims had been molested by another man earlier. However, the trial court decided that this information wasn't relevant to the case at hand. The judge recognized that while the evidence could have some bearing, it also risked confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing the victims. Grenemyer argued that his sentences were too harsh, claiming that life imprisonment without parole was not appropriate under the law effective at the time of his offenses. However, this was found to be without merit as the law allowed for such sentences. The appeals court found an issue with how much past behavior information was shared during the trial, particularly focusing on the testimonies of older siblings who spoke of their own experiences of abuse. The amount of such information might have led the jury to concentrate more on past actions rather than the specific charges brought against Grenemyer. The judges agreed that while the evidence did not affect the jury's determination of guilt, it likely influenced the sentences they recommended. Thus, Grenemyer’s sentences for the first-degree rape charges were modified to ensure he would have the possibility for parole after serving a portion of his sentence. In conclusion, while the convictions were upheld based on the strong testimony of the victims, the sentence was adjusted to reflect the concerns regarding the fairness of the trial and the overwhelming amount of past abuse information presented.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-763, Armand Rashawn Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including robbery with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, and kidnapping. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One member dissented. Johnson was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to a total of 30 years in prison for some counts, while others had sentences ranging from 20 to 40 years. The main reasons for his appeal focused on concerns about how the jury was instructed and treated during the trial. Johnson argued that the trial court's actions could have influenced the jurors' decisions, which should be based on facts and law alone. The court agreed with Johnson on several points. It found that the trial judge's comments and guidance during jury selection were inappropriate and could have pressured the jurors into making decisions against their personal beliefs. This meant that the fairness of his trial was in question. Since the court decided to reverse Johnson's convictions, there was no need to examine the other claims he made about the evidence and the fairness of his sentence. The court emphasized that jurors should only be focused on the law and evidence presented to them and not on any frustrations that might come from court procedures. As a result, Johnson will get a new trial, where the procedures may be handled in a way that better protects his rights.
In OCCA case No. F-2008-214, Joe Lee Birmingham appealed his conviction for three counts of lewd and indecent acts with a child under sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentences to four years imprisonment in each count, to be served concurrently, and as modified, the decision was affirmed. One judge dissented. Joe Lee Birmingham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of lewd acts against a child in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to four years for each count, and the sentences were to be served back-to-back. Birmingham had raised several arguments in his appeal, saying his trial was unfair because important evidence was not allowed, his lawyer didn’t help him properly, and other issues with the trial and sentencing. First, he argued that the judge would not let him show he had a medical condition called ALS, which he thought was important for his defense. However, the court concluded that this evidence did not really change the situation since he admitted to touching the girl, even if he said it wasn’t inappropriate. Next, Birmingham claimed his lawyer made many mistakes that hurt his case, but the court found that the mistakes did not likely change the trial's outcome. He also said that the proof his actions were wrong wasn’t good enough, but the court disagreed, stating that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reach a conclusion. Birmingham’s complaints about not getting the right jury instructions were found to be invalid, as he did not raise them during the trial. Regarding the idea that changing one of the charges after the state had presented its evidence was incorrect, the court found it was done properly. Birmingham said the prosecutor behaved badly during the trial, but the court believed the comments made were just pointing out reasonable conclusions from evidence. His argument about the length of his sentences being too harsh was also denied. The court even said they believed he should serve his sentences concurrently, rather than back-to-back, because of his health issues. Overall, the court felt that the trial was fair, and even if there were some minor issues, they did not believe they negatively affected the outcome much. Thus, they decided his sentences would be adjusted to only four years overall for his actions, instead of having to serve each count one after the other.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1208, Kendall Dewayne Carr appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Carr being convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. The main issue during his appeal was that Carr was not given a fair trial because he could not remove a juror who showed bias towards police officers. This juror openly stated he would believe police testimonies more than other witness statements, which raised concerns about his ability to be fair. The court agreed that this bias should have led to the juror's removal. They noted that when any doubts exist about a juror's fairness, they should favor the accused. Since this bias was significant, the court ruled that Carr did not receive proper justice and ordered a new trial. They decided not to consider other issues raised in the appeal since the need for a new trial was clear. In summary, the court found that an unfair juror could have influenced the case against Carr, leading to their decision to reverse the conviction and mandate a new trial.
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 2004-582, Ryan Golden appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided that he was entitled to a new trial because he was not given the correct number of chances to challenge jurors. The ruling was that the trial court's mistake was serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, and because of this error, the original sentence was reversed and a new trial was ordered. One judge dissented, arguing that there should have been a demonstration of actual prejudice or harm caused by the mistake.