Lewis Long, III v State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-211

Filed: Jul. 25, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Lewis Long, III appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine). Conviction and sentence: 20 years imprisonment. Judge Kuehn dissented.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the district court 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure due to police officers entering a dwelling without knocking and announcing their presence?
• Did the State fail to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant constructively possessed methamphetamine?
• Was there insufficient evidence to bind Appellant over for trial on trafficking of a controlled substance?

Findings

• The court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence related to the officers' entry without knocking and announcing.
• The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for constructive possession of methamphetamine.
• The court did not err in denying the motion to quash, as there was probable cause at the preliminary hearing.

F-2018-211

Jul. 25, 2019

Lewis Long, III

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant, Lewis Long, III, was tried and convicted by a jury in the District Court of Beckham County, Case No. CF-2017-66, for the crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine), After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2015, § 2-415.¹ The jury recommended a sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment. The Honorable Doug Haught, District Judge, sentenced Long in accordance with the jury’s verdict and imposed various costs and fees. Long now appeals.

1 The jury acquitted Appellant of a separate count of Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.

Appellant alleges the following propositions of error on appeal:

I. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE WHEN POLICE OFFICERS, WHEN SERVING A BENCH WARRANT, ENTERED A DWELLING WITHOUT KNOCKING AND ANNOUNCING THEIR PRESENCE;

II. THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT APPELLANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED METHAMPHETAMINE; and

III. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BIND APPELLANT OVER FOR TRIAL ON TRAFFICKING OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and the parties’ briefs, we find that no relief is required under the law and evidence. Appellant’s judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

Proposition I. Assuming arguendo error from the officers’ failure to comply with the knock-and-announce rule, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence found inside the motel room. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593-94, 599, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 2165, 2168, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006) (the exclusionary rule is inapplicable as a remedy for violations of the knock-and-announce rule by police² officers); Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37, ¶ 17, 433 P.3d 1264, 1270 (reviewing district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion); Brumfield v. State, 2007 OK CR 10, ¶¶ 10-11, 155 P.3d 826, 831 (discussing Hudson, supra). Proposition I is denied.

Proposition II. We review sufficiency of the evidence claims in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 74, 268 P.3d 86, 111; Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04. This analysis requires examination of the entire record. Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 35, 12 P.3d 20, 35. This Court will accept all reasonable inferences and credibility choices that tend to support the verdict. Davis, 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 74, 268 P.3d at 111. Further, the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence and either, or any combination of the two, may be sufficient to support a conviction. Miller v. State, 2013 OK CR 11, ¶ 84, 313 P.3d 934, 965. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence was presented at trial to allow any rational trier of fact to³ find beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant had constructive joint possession of the 21.09 grams of methamphetamine found on the desk inside the motel room. See Staples v. State, 1974 OK CR 208, ¶ 8, 528 P.2d 1131, 1133; 63 O.S.Supp.2015, § 2-415. Proposition II is denied.

Proposition III. This Court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion to quash using an abuse of discretion standard. Manning v. State, 1981 OK CR 75, ¶ 4, 630 P.2d 327, 329. Because Appellant did not file a formal motion to quash before the district court arraignment, however, he has waived review of this issue on appeal for all but plain error. Burgess v. State, 2010 OK CR 25, ¶ 16, 243 P.3d 461, 464. To be entitled to relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must show the existence of an actual error (i.e., deviation from a legal rule), that is plain or obvious, and that affects his substantial rights, meaning the error affected the outcome of the proceeding. Musonda v. State, 2019 OK CR 1, ¶ 6, 435 P.3d 694, 696. If these elements are met, this Court will correct plain error only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or otherwise represents a miscarriage of justice. Id.; 20 O.S.2011, § 3001.1.

Appellant fails to show actual or obvious error from the trial court’s failure to grant the motion to quash. The only issues at preliminary hearing are: 1) whether there is probable cause that a crime was committed and 2) whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime. See Office of State Chief Medical Examiner v. Reeves, 2012 OK CR 10, ¶ 13, 280 P.3d 357, 359; 22 O.S.2011, § 258. This Court has noted that the State is not required to present sufficient evidence to convict at a preliminary hearing. Johnson v. State, 1986 OK CR 187, ¶ 5, 731 P.2d 424, 425. It is presumed that the State will strengthen its case at trial. Id., 1986 OK CR 187, ¶ 5, 731 P.2d at 425-26. The State at preliminary hearing showed that the crime of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs had been committed and that there was probable cause that Appellant committed that offense. There is no actual or obvious error from the trial court’s failure to grant Appellant’s motion to quash and thus no plain error. Proposition III is denied.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the district court 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BECKHAM COUNTY THE HONORABLE DOUG HAUGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

RYAN RECKER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 88
WEATHERFORD, OK 73096
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

NANCY WALKER-JOHNSON
OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

LYNN LAWRENCE HOUSLEY
MIKE HUNTER
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL
BECKHAM COUNTY

DONALD D. SELF
ASST. ATTY. GENERAL
P.O. BOX 507
SAYRE, OK 73662
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.

LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR

KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR

LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR

ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.2015, § 2-415.
2. Hudson U. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593-94, 599, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 2165, 2168, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006).
3. Mason U. State, 2018 OK CR 37, II 17, 433 P.3d 1264, 1270.
4. Brumfield U. State, 2007 OK CR 10, III 10-11, 155 P.3d 826, 831.
5. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).
6. Davis U. State, 2011 OK CR 29, I 74, 268 P.3d 86, 111.
7. Spuehler U. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04.
8. Young U. State, 2000 OK CR 17, I 35, 12 P.3d 20, 35.
9. Miller U. State, 2013 OK CR 11, I 84, 313 P.3d 934, 965.
10. Staples U. State, 1974 OK CR 208, II 8, 528 P.2d 1131, 1133.
11. 20 O.S.2011, § 3001.1.
12. Office of State Chief Medical Examiner U. Reeves, 2012 OK CR 10, II 13, 280 P.3d 357, 359.
13. 22 O.S.2011, § 258.
14. Johnson U. State, 1986 OK CR 187, II 5, 731 P.2d 424, 425.
15. Id., 1986 OK CR 187, I 5, 731 P.2d at 425-26.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-415 - Trafficking in Illegal Drugs
• Okla. Stat. tit. 20 § 3001.1 - Plain Error Doctrine
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 258 - Preliminary Hearing
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3001.1 - Motion to Quash

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:

• Hudson U. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593-94, 599, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 2165, 2168, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006)
• Mason U. State, 2018 OK CR 37, II 17, 433 P.3d 1264, 1270
• Brumfield U. State, 2007 OK CR 10, III 10-11, 155 P.3d 826, 831
• Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)
• Davis U. State, 2011 OK CR 29, I 74, 268 P.3d 86, 111
• Spuehler U. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04
• Young U. State, 2000 OK CR 17, I 35, 12 P.3d 20, 35
• Miller U. State, 2013 OK CR 11, I 84, 313 P.3d 934, 965
• Staples U. State, 1974 OK CR 208, II 8, 528 P.2d 1131, 1133
• Manning U. State, 1981 OK CR 75, I 4, 630 P.2d 327, 329
• Burgess U. State, 2010 OK CR 25, q 16, 243 P.3d 461, 464
• Musonda U. State, 2019 OK CR 1, II 6, 435 P.3d 694, 696
• Office of State Chief Medical Examiner U. Reeves, 2012 OK CR 10, II 13, 280 P.3d 357, 359
• Johnson U. State, 1986 OK CR 187, II 5, 731 P.2d 424, 425