Vladimir Mokienko v The State Of Oklahoma
M 2018-0277
Filed: May 16, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
# Vladimir Mokienko appealed his conviction for speeding. Conviction and sentence: a $10 fine. Judge A. Clark Jett dissented.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. TR-2017-2685 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the speeding conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Did the State establish that visual estimation by a trained officer was enough to determine speeding?
- Was a functional radar gun required for a speeding conviction under Oklahoma law?
Findings
- The court did not err.
- The evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of speeding beyond a reasonable doubt.
M 2018-0277
May 16, 2019
Vladimir Mokienko
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
JOHN D. HADDEN LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:
Appellant was convicted following a non-jury trial in the District Court of Texas County, Case No. TR-2017-2685, of Speeding (21-25 mph over limit), 47 O.S. 11-801(B)(1). The Honorable A. Clark Jett, Associate District Judge, fined Appellant $10.00. Appellant appeals from the Judgment and Sentence imposed. On appeal, Appellant raised the sole proposition of error that the State did not establish that he was speeding beyond a reasonable doubt. We find reversal is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the District Court.
Appellant argues there is no case law in Oklahoma supportive of visual estimation being sufficient for a speeding conviction. The State answers that nothing within Oklahoma law suggests that a functional radar gun is required to enforce traffic laws. In this case the Oklahoma State Trooper, who is CLEET certified, testified he was trained to visually estimate the speed of vehicles within 5 mph of their actual speed. He testified that he visually observed Appellant’s vehicle exceeding the posted speed limit.
The standard for review, as set forth in Spuehler U. State, 1985 OK CR 132, IT 7, 709 P.2d 202, is whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case any rational juror could have found the existence of the essential elements of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
DECISION
The Judgment and Sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. TR-2017-2685 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
A MISDEMEANOR APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS COUNTY, THE HONORABLE A. CLARK JETT, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
CHRISTOPHER J. LIEBMAN
104 NE 4TH STREET
P. O. BOX 2055
GUYMON, OKLAHOMA 73942
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
CHRISTOPHER J. LIEBMAN
104 NE 4TH STREET
P. O. BOX 2055
GUYMON, OKLAHOMA 73942
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
TAOS C. SMITH
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
319 N. MAIN STREET
GUYMON, OKLAHOMA 73942
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
MIKE HUNTER
GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
THEODORE M. PEEPER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.E. 21st STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.
KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur
HUDSON, J.: Concur
ROWLAND, J.: Concur
Footnotes:
- 47 O.S. 11-801(B)(1)
- Spuehler U. State, 1985 OK CR 132, IT 7, 709 P.2d 202
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-801(B)(1) - Speeding
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Criminal Sentencing
Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:
No Oklahoma administrative rules found.
U.S. Code citations:
No US Code citations found.
Other citations:
No other rule citations found.
Case citations:
- Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202