LEE v. STATE, 422 P.3d 782

Defendant Glendell Dewayne Lee was convicted by jury of two counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill, one count of Robbery with a Firearm, and one count of Possession of a Firearm After Felony Conviction in Tulsa County (CF-15-2282).
Jury recommended 100 years on each shooting count and life on robbery and firearm-possession counts; trial court imposed consecutive sentences accordingly.
On appeal Lee raised (1) an incomplete jury instruction on Oklahoma’s 85% Rule, (2) prosecutorial misconduct, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) cumulative error.
The trial court’s Instruction No. 36 incorrectly stated the 85% Rule applied only to life sentences, omitting its application to specified long-term sentences (Counts I and II were 85% crimes).
Prosecutor misstated that a life sentence equals 45 years and referenced excluded hearsay; defense did not object at trial to some of these comments.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions but found plain error as to sentencing instruction and prosecutor’s misstatement, and remanded for resentencing on all counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lee)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Adequacy of 85% instruction	Instruction was incomplete and deprived Lee of accurate sentencing guidance	Any defect was harmless; guilt unaffected	Court found plain and obvious error that affected substantial rights; remanded for resentencing
Prosecutorial misconduct (hearsay & sentencing comment)	Prosecutor’s references to excluded hearsay and stating life = 45 years prejudiced Lee	Court admonished jury about hearsay; misstatement of 45 years alone not always reversible	Hearsay remark harmless given admonition and evidence weight; misstatement of life as 45 years, combined with faulty 85% instruction and prosecutorial request for 1,000 years, contributed to sentencing error — remand for resentencing
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel erred by eliciting defendant’s criminal history, failing to object to misstatements, and poor questioning	Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy and within professional norms; no prejudice shown to guilt phase	Court rejected ineffective-assistance claims; found strategy reasonable and any sentencing prejudice cured by resentencing
Cumulative error	Combined errors denied a fair trial	Errors did not affect guilt phase; only sentencing affected	Court held cumulative-error claim fails as guilt/innocence unaffected; limited relief (resentencing) warranted

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (plain-error review framework)
Daniels v. State, 369 P.3d 381 (application of plain-error review)
Marquez-Burrola v. State, 157 P.3d 749 (errors in 85% instruction are error)
Anderson v. State, 130 P.3d 273 (parole/85% discussion; misstatements about parole eligibility)
Florez v. State, 239 P.3d 156 (misstatements of law do not always require relief)
Goode v. State, 236 P.3d 671 (Strickland application in Oklahoma criminal appeals)

Decision: Convictions affirmed; case remanded for resentencing on all counts.