S

S-2012-1012

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-1012, Barry Lee Brown appealed his conviction for a traffic offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the prosecution. One judge dissented. The case began when a police officer claimed to have seen a traffic violation, which led to a stop of Barry Lee Brown's vehicle. After stopping him, the officer suspected that Brown might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A second officer was called to the scene to perform sobriety tests. Before the trial, Barry Lee Brown argued that the stop was not legal and asked the court to throw out any evidence from the stop. During the hearing, the officer who stopped Brown had trouble remembering exactly what happened. He referred to a report written by the second officer, but that officer had not witnessed the stop himself. Initially, the trial court thought there was enough evidence to say the stop was legal, but later changed its mind. The court reviewed different points raised by the state about why the trial court’s decision should be changed. The state argued that the trial court made mistakes in its decision to suppress the evidence. However, the Appeals Court looked carefully at the facts and decided that the trial court had a good reason to change its decision. They noted that the officer who stopped Brown did not have a clear memory and his testimony was mainly based on what was written in another officer's report. The Appeals Court stated it respects the findings of the trial court unless they are clearly wrong or not supported by the evidence. After reviewing everything, they agreed with the trial court's ruling because it was based on the officer's inability to reliably remember the details of the stop. The Appeals Court also addressed the state’s claim that the trial court should not have been allowed to change its previous ruling. They found that the state did not provide enough legal backing for this claim, so they didn't consider it further. Finally, the court looked at whether the first officer could accurately use the report to refresh his memory about the stop. They concluded that just because he accepted the report as true did not mean it helped him remember the stop accurately. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to suppress the evidence that led to the conviction and agreed to dismiss the case.

Continue ReadingS-2012-1012

S-2013-103

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-103, Uriel Alajandro Lopez and Maria Magana appealed their conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling which granted a motion to suppress evidence. One judge dissented. Lopez and Magana were charged in McIntosh County after Trooper Koch stopped their vehicle. Before the trial started, they filed to suppress evidence related to the traffic stop and the search of their vehicle. The district court agreed and granted their motions, leading the state to appeal. The state argued two main points for the appeal. First, they believed the trooper had a valid reason to stop the vehicle, claiming that Magana broke traffic laws by following another vehicle too closely and failing to move for an emergency vehicle. However, the court found that the trooper's basis for the stop was questionable because the laws did not support his reasoning. The trooper said Magana was driving less than two seconds behind a truck, which he thought was unsafe. But he was unable to prove that this was a valid reason under the law. The rules of driving were not clear enough to justify his stop. The court noted that the trooper’s idea of a two-second rule was not mentioned in the traffic laws, which made it hard to understand if there was any real violation. The court also looked at a second reason the state provided, which was that the trooper had seen Magana not move to the left lane for an emergency vehicle. However, the trooper didn’t take any action based on this perceived violation when he stopped the car. Since this point wasn't strongly developed during the hearing, the court didn’t consider it either. Second, the state argued that searching the vehicle was legal because of signs of criminal activity and the consent given by both Lopez and Magana. But since the first argument about the stop was not valid, the search did not hold up in court. Therefore, the appeal was denied and the decision to suppress the evidence was upheld. In conclusion, the court agreed with the district court's decision to grant the motion to suppress, stating that the trooper did not have a good reason for the stop. The opinion from the court was not published for public record, but it reinforced the importance of adhering to the rules of evidence and the proper procedures during traffic stops.

Continue ReadingS-2013-103

S-2013-127

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-127, Isaac Paul Bell appealed his conviction for Possession of a Weapon on School Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that quashed and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. Isaac Paul Bell was accused of having a weapon on school property, which is against the law in Oklahoma. Bell filed a motion to have the charges dropped, and the judge agreed, deciding that the charges could not stand. The state of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision and appealed, arguing that the police had enough reasons to stop and search Bell. The state presented three reasons why they thought the dismissal was wrong. First, they argued that because there were weapons in plain sight, the police had a good reason to stop Bell. Second, they claimed that Bell agreed to let the police search his car after they asked him about other weapons, and that was okay. Finally, they said the court made a mistake by dismissing the charges when they believed there was enough proof to continue the case. The reviewing court looked carefully at all parts of the situation. They understood that officers must have a good reason to stop someone and that the police had to follow rules when stopping and searching a person. The court found that the officer did not have a strong enough reason to stop Bell. When the officer saw the knives in Bell's truck, there was no reason to think Bell was doing anything wrong because he had not broken any laws, and the knives were properly stored. The court also considered whether Bell's agreement to let police search his truck was valid since he had already been detained wrongly. They decided that Bell's consent was not free and voluntary because it happened immediately after the wrongful detention. Since Bell was handcuffed and questioned by an armed officer without being informed of his rights, the court determined that his consent did not fix the problem caused by the illegal detention. Because of how they resolved the first two points, the third point from the state was no longer important. Therefore, they affirmed the decision to dismiss the case against Bell.

Continue ReadingS-2013-127

S-2012-834

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-834, the State of Oklahoma appealed an order that granted a motion to dismiss several charges against Jeffrey Porras. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling. One judge dissented. The case involved charges against Porras, who is a physician. He was accused of committing sexual battery and rape against multiple victims while they were receiving medical treatment. The accusations included five counts of sexual battery and one count of second-degree rape, with the incidents alleged to have occurred in different counties over a period of time from 2005 to 2007. The trial court dismissed some of the counts because it felt that the incidents were not part of a single plan or scheme. The law allows for multiple charges to be tried together if they are connected in a way that shows they are part of the same pattern of criminal behavior. However, the court decided that the alleged crimes in Oklahoma County and Cleveland County were separate and did not meet the criteria for joining them in one trial. In making this decision, the court looked at how the offenses occurred over a span of two years and did not significantly overlap in timing or in the way they were committed. This means that the crimes did not depend on each other and were not part of a continuous plan that would justify being tried together. The appellate court agreed with the trial judge's reasoning, stating that there was no clear error in the decision to dismiss those charges. The ruling reaffirmed that the charges from different counties could be handled separately without causing injustice to anyone. The dissenting judge, however, believed that the charges should not have been dismissed since they had common elements and were related to his actions as a doctor. The dissent argued that since all victims were patients and the incidents happened in similar situations, it was appropriate to consider them as part of a greater plan to commit these crimes. In conclusion, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss certain charges against Porras, maintaining that the evidence did not sufficiently show a connection that warranted a single trial for all the charges.

Continue ReadingS-2012-834

S-2012-554

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Frank Lee Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that suppressed the evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Sheila Carol Johnson. Johnson also appealed her conviction in a related case, S-2012-554. The court found that the law enforcement officers did not execute the search warrant in a timely manner as required, which led to the suppression of the evidence. The judge's determination was based on the conclusion that the search was not conducted immediately as directed by the issuing judge, and therefore, the court upheld the lower court's decision, sustaining the motions to suppress. No dissenting opinion was filed.

Continue ReadingS-2012-554

S-2012-553

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug possession and distribution. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that evidence obtained during a search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Johnson should be suppressed. Johnson dissented. The case started when police met with an informant who said they could buy methamphetamine from Armstrong. The police observed a controlled purchase of drugs and later obtained a search warrant for Armstrong's home. They executed this search warrant a few days later and found Armstrong and Johnson in a car outside his residence, where they discovered several drug-related items. Both Armstrong and Johnson hired the same lawyer and filed motions to suppress the evidence from the car search. The district court agreed with their argument that the police had not executed the search warrant immediately, as the warrant required. Because of this, the court decided the search was not valid. The appeals court looked into whether the district court had made a mistake. They decided that the court did not abuse its discretion and confirmed the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence. This means that the evidence collected during the search could not be used against them in court. The court emphasized that the terms of the warrant were not followed as required. The ruling highlighted the importance of following legal procedures when executing search warrants. In summary, Armstrong's appeal was not successful, and the ruling to suppress the evidence was upheld.

Continue ReadingS-2012-553

S-2012-244

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-244, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Sonya Renee Wichert for unlawful purchase of pseudoephedrine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the case against Wichert. One judge dissented. Wichert faced eleven counts related to breaking the Meth Registry Act, which had come into effect on November 1, 2010. She had a previous conviction for possession of methamphetamine and was on probation. The case stemmed from an investigation that revealed she purchased pseudoephedrine after the law took effect, leading to her arrest. At her preliminary hearing, Wichert argued that the law shouldn't apply to her because her conviction happened before the law was in place. The judge agreed with her, stating there could be serious problems with fairness if the law was applied to her without her having been informed of it. Because of this lack of notice about the new law, the district court decided to dismiss the charges. The court referenced a previous case, Wolf v. State, which established that individuals who are on probation when a law takes effect must be notified if it affects them. Without proper notice regarding the Meth Registry Act, the court ruled that it would not be fair to hold Wichert accountable under this law. Thus, the overall decision was to uphold the dismissal of her case because applying the law without notification did not meet the necessary fairness requirements.

Continue ReadingS-2012-244

S-2012-573

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-573, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the orders of the lower court. The dissenting opinion was not specified. In this case, the appellant was charged after being arrested by a trooper from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. A preliminary hearing took place, and the judge decided there was not enough evidence to proceed with a trial. The state disagreed and appealed this decision. Another judge upheld the first decision, leading to the current appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issue in the appeal focused on whether the highway patrol trooper had the authority to arrest the appellant. After careful consideration and a hearing, the court found no error in how the lower courts handled the case. They determined that the facts and legal interpretations were correct, and therefore, the original decision was upheld. The case was reviewed under specific procedures that allow this kind of state appeal, and the court confirmed that there was no abuse of discretion in the previous rulings. As a result, the final rulings and orders from the lower courts were affirmed, and the court ordered that their decision be enforced.

Continue ReadingS-2012-573

S-2011-1115

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-1115, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction regarding defendants accused of conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided that the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was not enough to support a conspiracy charge against the defendants. The ruling of the lower court was affirmed, and one judge dissented. In this case, the defendants were accused of agreeing to a bribe related to an election. The State claimed that one defendant offered the other a job to persuade her not to run for a Senate seat. The court looked carefully at the evidence and found that there was not enough proof to show that the defendants had a plan to commit a crime together. Thus, their appeal was rejected, and the original decision was upheld, concluding that the charge of conspiracy was not valid based on the information provided.

Continue ReadingS-2011-1115

S-2012-166

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-166, Moises Gonzales-Tello appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Heroin. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling to suppress evidence gathered during a traffic stop. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma appealed a decision made by the district court. This decision was based on a traffic stop where law enforcement officers discovered evidence of a crime, but the evidence was later deemed inadmissible. The district court ruled that the stop had taken too long and that the officer did not have a proper reason to keep the suspect detained after the initial reason for the stop was completed. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed several unusual things that made him suspicious. He called for a drug-sniffing dog to come to the scene. Even though the officer asked for permission to search the car, he did not actually let the suspect leave and did not return his driver's license or paperwork. The dog arrived about 30 minutes after the stop began, but did not find anything. After the dog didn't indicate any signs of drugs, the officer conducted his own search and found a significant amount of heroin. The court looked closely at whether the officer had enough reason to continue holding the suspect after the initial reason for the traffic stop was accomplished. While the State argued that the officer's actions were justified, the court explained that to search a car without a warrant, an officer must have either permission from the owner or a strong reason to believe the car contains evidence of a crime. In this case, the dog did not find anything and the officer did not get enough proof that would justify a search. If there had been clear consent from the suspect for the search, the situation might have been different. However, the way the officer asked for consent made it seem as if the suspect did not truly have a choice. When the court reviewed the case, they found that the district court made a reasonable decision in ruling that the initial detention was too long and that the search was not justified. The State also argued against using the Exclusionary Rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The court did not agree with the State on this argument, as they did not provide enough support for their claim. In summary, the court decided to maintain the district court's order to suppress the evidence found during the traffic stop, agreeing that the officers did not follow the correct procedures.

Continue ReadingS-2012-166

S-2012-194

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-194, Campbell appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the case, meaning Campbell's charges were dropped. No one dissented. Here’s a summary of what happened: James Monroe Campbell was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. Before the trial began, he asked the court to dismiss the case by filing a request called a Motion to Dismiss. During a hearing before the trial, the judge decided that the evidence against Campbell should not be used, and this meant the case was dismissed. The State of Oklahoma, unhappy with this decision, decided to appeal, which means they wanted another court to review what happened. They filed their appeal based on certain laws that say they have the right to challenge the dismissal of cases when it involves important evidence being excluded. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they claimed the judge made a mistake by dismissing Campbell's case because he believed Campbell broke the law by not staying entirely in one lane while driving. Second, they argued the judge was wrong because the police officer had a good reason to stop Campbell’s car in the first place. To decide if the original judge made a mistake, the court looked at whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to pull Campbell over. A reasonable suspicion is a legal term meaning the officer had a good reason to believe a law was possibly being broken. The officer in this case stated that he stopped Campbell because he saw Campbell's car touch the line marking the lane. However, when the judge looked closely at the evidence, including a video of the incident, she thought that Campbell was driving pretty straight and did not see enough evidence to support the claim that he was breaking any laws. The judge also mentioned that the officer’s concerns did not seem strong enough to justify the stop. Therefore, she decided to dismiss the case because there was not enough evidence to support stopping Campbell's car. When reviewing the situation, the appeals court sided with the original judge's decision and agreed that there was no abuse of discretion, meaning they believed she made the correct choice based on the information available. The court also stated that since the issue of Campbell possibly driving under the influence wasn't raised during the earlier hearing, they could not consider that during the appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to suppress evidence and dismissed the charges against Campbell, which was a win for him.

Continue ReadingS-2012-194

S-2012-214

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-214, Nhanh Van Dang and Nhi Thi Nguyen appealed their conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence, meaning the charges against them could not proceed. One judge dissented. The case began when law enforcement stopped the vehicle driving by Dang and Nguyen. They were suspected of breaking traffic laws, but the court found that the officers did not have enough reason to pull them over. The original judge ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the stop, which led to the suppression of the evidence gathered afterward. The state tried to argue that the stop was justified because of alleged traffic violations. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision, saying the evidence did not clearly show that the officers had a good reason to stop the vehicle. Since the stop was deemed improper, the gathered evidence could not be used in court against Dang and Nguyen. Therefore, the appeals court confirmed that the right decision was made by the lower court in suppressing the evidence, reinforcing the idea that fair legal procedures must be followed.

Continue ReadingS-2012-214

S-2011-765

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-765, Steven Cory Lymen appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the State's appeal to reverse the trial court's decision. The court determined that the trial court did not misuse its authority when it suppressed evidence and dismissed the case. The State had argued that the witness's identification of Lymen was valid despite it being considered unduly suggestive initially, but the court ultimately agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the identification was not reliable.

Continue ReadingS-2011-765

S-2011-545

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-545, the State of Oklahoma appealed his conviction for evidence suppression. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order. One judge dissented. The case involved the State of Oklahoma appealing a decision made by a special judge in Cleveland County. The State was unhappy with the judge's ruling to suppress evidence, which they felt was unfair. The main reason for the appeal was that the State believed the judge did not have the right to impose punishment on them for what they claimed was a misunderstanding of the Discovery Code. Essentially, they argued that they had not violated any rules regarding the sharing of evidence and information before the trial. The court had to look at whether the judge's decision was reasonable or if it was clearly wrong. The judges found that the special judge had good reason to impose sanctions on the State because it was determined that the State did not follow the proper procedures for sharing evidence. This is known as discovery. The court highlighted that it is very important in criminal cases for both sides to share information so that there are no surprises during the trial. This process helps ensure fairness and allows both sides to prepare adequately. The court explained that there are rules in place for how evidence should be shared and that these rules are crucial to ensuring justice. The district court had determined that the State should have done more to preserve evidence that could have been useful for the defense. Because they did not do this, the special judge decided to impose penalties on the State as a form of punishment for not following the rules. After reviewing the situation, the court found that the special judge acted within his rights in deciding to sanction the State. As a result, the court affirmed the decision made by the district court in Cleveland County. The judges agreed that enforcing these discovery rules is necessary to avoid similar problems in future cases. So, in the end, the court supported the lower court's ruling by stating that the sanctions against the State were appropriate. This decision encourages the State and other prosecutors to comply with the Discovery Code in future cases, ensuring fair trials for everyone involved.

Continue ReadingS-2011-545

S-2011-544

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-544, the State of Oklahoma appealed a court's decision where evidence was suppressed in a criminal case. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling. One member of the court did not agree with this decision. The case began when the district court, under the Special Judge, found that the State had not followed the rules about sharing evidence, known as the Discovery Code. The State argued that it had done nothing wrong and claimed that the court should not have punished them for this. They believed the judge’s decision to tell the jury about the supposed violation was also wrong, especially since they didn't act in bad faith. The court examined the arguments from both sides and concluded that the district court did not make a mistake. They believed that the State really did not follow the rules and agreed that it was appropriate to impose penalties for this. The court also explained that they don't usually review jury instructions in these matters. Ultimately, the higher court decided to keep the ruling from the district court, meaning the previous decision to suppress the evidence remained in effect. The ruling was considered important in the context of the legal process. In the end, the reasoning emphasized that having a fair process helps both sides in a case and that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each other's arguments can make trials go better. Even though some might think the penalties were harsh, the court felt it was essential to make sure that such rules are followed in the future.

Continue ReadingS-2011-544

S-2011-543

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-543, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction for suppressing evidence against DAREN LEVI GEYER. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order. The judges noted that the trial court was correct in determining that the State had violated rules regarding evidence disclosure and imposed sanctions on the State for not following these rules. The court found that the State's failures warranted these sanctions, and the imposition of a jury instruction against the State was also upheld. One judge dissented, emphasizing the importance of fair play in the discovery process during trials.

Continue ReadingS-2011-543

S-2011-0801

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2011-0801, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Wendel Hughes for preventing a witness from giving testimony, use of a firearm while committing a felony, and false reports of crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that dismissed the charges of preventing a witness from testifying and use of a firearm while committing a felony. One judge dissented. Wendel Hughes was charged in Sequoyah County with three serious offenses. During the preliminary hearing, the magistrate determined that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges of preventing a witness from giving testimony or using a firearm during a felony. The State thought this decision was wrong and appealed the ruling. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to see if there is likely enough evidence to believe that a crime happened and that the accused person committed it. The court reviewed the case to check if the lower court made a mistake in its decision. They found that the evidence the State provided was not strong enough to show that Hughes committed the crimes. So, they decided not to change the ruling of the lower court. The court affirmed the dismissal of the two counts against Hughes, meaning they agreed with the previous decision. The judge who disagreed with the majority opinion thought that the evidence should have been enough to go to trial. He argued that the evidence suggested Hughes had intentions to stop the witness from providing testimony and that a jury should decide if he was guilty based on all the facts of the case. In summary, Hughes's charges were dismissed because the courts did not find enough evidence of his wrongdoing based on the information presented during the preliminary hearing.

Continue ReadingS-2011-0801

S-2011-774

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-774, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of DeJear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the previous ruling, which found there was not enough evidence to prove that DeJear was under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, making the charges not applicable. One judge dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingS-2011-774

S-2011-0467

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-0467, a person appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm after a previous conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling which found that the application of a new law to this case was unconstitutional. One judge dissented. To explain further, the person involved, known as the appellee, was charged after a new law was enacted that changed the rules about possessing firearms for people with past convictions. Originally, under the law at the time the appellee completed his past sentence, he was allowed to possess a firearm. However, the law changed in 2010 to make it more difficult for people with certain convictions to have firearms, requiring them to wait ten years instead of just having their rights restored after finishing their sentence. The appeal began after a magistrate found that using the new law against the appellee was unfair because it changed the rules after he had already completed his legal obligations. The court needed to determine if this application of the law was considered an ex post facto law, which is illegal under the Constitution because it punishes someone for actions that were not against the law when they were done. The appellee had completed his deferred sentence successfully and had regained the right to possess a firearm. The court recognized that the law should not punish people for actions that were legal at the time they were done, and applying the new law to the appellee would violate this principle. Therefore, the decision from the lower court was upheld, meaning the appellee would not face penalties from the new law. The ruling confirmed that once someone has completed their deferred sentence, they should not have to follow new rules that were created after the fact regarding possession of firearms.

Continue ReadingS-2011-0467

S 2011-0024

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2011-0024, Joel Christion Aranda appealed his conviction for multiple charges including Use of a Vehicle in Discharge of a Weapon and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed several counts against Aranda. One judge dissented, believing there was enough evidence to proceed with some of the charges.

Continue ReadingS 2011-0024

S 2011-0023

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2011-0023, David Franco appealed his conviction for several charges related to using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, feloniously pointing a firearm, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that dismissed some of the charges against him. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS 2011-0023

S-2011-208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-208, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision made by a Special Judge regarding the suppression of evidence connected to Shea Brandon Seals. In an unpublished decision, the court upheld the Special Judge's ruling, agreeing that there was not enough reason to stop Seals' vehicle. The court found that the evidence supported the decision that Seals did not break any traffic laws, and thus, the law enforcement officer did not have a valid reason to stop him. The State also tried to argue that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop, but this argument was presented for the first time during the appeal, so the court did not consider it. The decision to deny the State's appeal was supported by competent evidence and adhered to legal standards. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2011-208

S-2010-540

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2010-540, Cavner appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the district court's decision to suppress the evidence. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged Cavner with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. He argued that the traffic stop was not justified because there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The district court agreed to suppress the evidence but did not dismiss the case entirely. On appeal, the State argued that the district court made an error by suppressing the evidence. When reviewing these kinds of cases, the court looks at the facts presented and defers to the trial court's findings unless something is clearly wrong. It was nighttime when Deputy Yarber observed a vehicle in the parking lot of an abandoned grocery store. He noted that the car left the parking lot in a lawful manner as he and another officer approached. The deputy did not mention any specific criminal activity and had no reason to believe something illegal was happening. Another officer had previously looked into possible drug activity in the area, but that had not been reported recently. In such situations, officers are allowed to check on people they find in unusual circumstances. However, since the vehicle drove away from the parking lot before Yarber could approach, he needed to stop it on a highway, which changes the situation from a simple question into a detention, known as a traffic stop. The law requires that a traffic stop must be supported by something more than just a hunch or general suspicion. The court explained that deputies must have reasonable suspicion to make a legal traffic stop. They look for specific facts suggesting that a crime may be occurring, which was not the case here. The deputy did not have enough evidence or reasons to suspect that Cavner was committing a crime simply because he was in the parking lot of an abandoned store late at night. The court referenced a prior case to support its decision, comparing the circumstances to those in a previous ruling where a stop was also deemed unlawful due to lack of reasonable suspicion. In Cavner's case, the court ruled that the officers did not have enough evidence to justify the traffic stop. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's order to suppress the evidence gathered during the stop, meaning the evidence could not be used against Cavner. The decision highlighted the importance of having proper legal grounds for police actions, ensuring that citizens' rights are protected under the law.

Continue ReadingS-2010-540

S-2009-944

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-944, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act did not apply to the defendant. A dissenting opinion was not stated. The case involved the defendant, who was previously charged under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The key question was whether later amendments to the law should apply to him or not, given that he had entered a plea in 1999 and had complied with the previous legal conditions. The magistrate in the lower court determined that the law changes would be unfair to apply retroactively in the defendant's case. The court explained that new laws usually apply to future actions unless they are explicitly stated to have retroactive effects. They found no clear indication in the legislature's changes to imply that the new requirements should apply to those who had already been sentenced under the old rules. The court confirmed that since the amendments would change the defendant's obligations significantly, these substantive changes should not apply to him. As a result, the decision maintained that the lower court's refusal to move forward on the charge against the defendant could stand, with the matter being sent back to the District Court for any further actions needed, while affirming that the defendant was correct in his assertion that the recent amendments did not apply to him.

Continue ReadingS-2009-944

S-2009-862

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing evidence. Margaret Ann Brumfield was also charged with the same crime in a companion case numbered S-2009-862, and the same ruling applied. The case began when Trooper Johnson stopped the vehicle driven by Mr. Brumfield for speeding and discovered he did not have a valid driver's license. Mrs. Brumfield was a passenger in the vehicle. During the stop, the officer suspected Mr. Brumfield was under the influence of a drug, so he had both Brumfields sit in the patrol car while he searched the vehicle. Initially, he found nothing, and he allowed them to leave. However, after listening to a conversation the couple had in the patrol car, he suspected there might be drugs under the passenger seat. When he searched again, he found methamphetamine. The State appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that the officer did have the right to search the vehicle due to Mr. Brumfield’s behavior and suspected drug use. However, the court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that reasonable suspicion (which the trooper had) is not enough for probable cause. The initial search was not justified, leading to the suppression of the evidence found later. Thus, the court's final decision affirmed the district court’s ruling that the search was unreasonable, and therefore, the evidence obtained could not be used in court against the Brumfields.

Continue ReadingS-2009-862