Sonia Weidenfelder v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-588

Filed: Oct. 31, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Sonia Weidenfelder appealed her conviction for first degree murder. Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson, and Rowland concurred, but the opinion does not mention any dissenting judges.

Decision

The judgment and sentence 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there probable cause for the search warrants authorizing the searches of the cell phones?
• Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized from the cell phones?
• Was the Appellant’s expectation of privacy in the data generated on the accomplice's phone legally protected?
• Did the trial court correctly exercise its discretion in admitting the evidence obtained from the cell phones at trial?

Findings

• The trial court properly exercised its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion to suppress.
• The affidavits supporting the search warrants established probable cause.
• The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

F-2018-588

Oct. 31, 2019

Sonia Weidenfelder

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

JOHN D. HADDEN, PRESIDING JUDGE:
Sonia Weidenfelder, Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty of first degree murder, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp. 2012, § 701.7(A), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-682. The jury sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. The Honorable William J. Musseman, District Judge, pronounced judgment and sentence accordingly. Ms. Weidenfelder appeals in the following proposition of error: The trial court erred when it denied Ms. Weidenfelder’s motion to suppress the contents of two cell phones in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy because the affidavits supporting the warrants authorizing the searches lacked probable cause. This error was a violation of Ms. Weidenfelder’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as Article II, § 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Appellant claims the trial court erred by admitting evidence seized from two cell phones in violation of her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Appellant preserved this challenge by moving to suppress the evidence in a pre-trial motion and objecting when the evidence was offered at trial. Specifically, she argues that the warrants authorizing searches of two cell phones were issued based on less than the probable cause demanded by the Fourth Amendment. This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion. State v. Pope, 2009 OK CR 9, ¶ 4, 204 P.3d 1285, 1287. An abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous judgment of the lower court; one that is contrary to the logic and effect of the facts presented. State v. Hooley, 2012 OK CR 3, ¶ 4, 269 P.3d 949, 950. In this inquiry, the Court defers to the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and reviews the legal conclusions derived from those facts de novo. Gomez v. State, 2007 OK CR 33, ¶ 5, 168 P.3d 1139, 1142-43.

In determining whether an affidavit for a search warrant establishes probable cause, the magistrate’s task is to make a practical, common-sense decision whether the facts and circumstances set forth in the affidavit show a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed. 2d 527 (1983). The affidavit must contain sufficient facts and circumstances to enable the magistrate to independently assess the conclusion that evidence of the crime is located where the affiant says it is. Marshall v. State, 2010 OK CR 8, ¶ 49, 232 P.3d 467, 479. The role of a court reviewing a magistrate’s issuance of the search warrant is to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding that probable cause existed. Langham v. State, 1990 OK CR 9, ¶ 7, 787 P.2d 1279, 1281.

From our examination of the affidavits supporting the search warrants issued for these phones, we find the magistrate’s basis for concluding that probable cause existed was substantial, as the facts showed probable cause to believe the phones contained evidence of this crime. The trial court therefore properly exercised its discretion in overruling Appellant’s motion to suppress and admitting the evidence seized from these phones at trial. This proposition is denied.

DECISION
The judgment and sentence 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. MUSSEMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
MISTY FIELDS
20 COURT PLACE
PRYOR, OK 74361
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
MICHAEL D. MOREHEAD
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

JAMES L. HANKINS
929 N.W. 164TH STREET
EDMOND, OK 73013
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

KENNETH ELMORE
MIKE HUNTER
KATY HAMSTRA
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

JOSHUA R. FANELLI
500 S. DENVER AVE., STE. 900
TULSA, OK 74103-3871
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J.
KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur
HUDSON, J.: Concur
ROWLAND, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Appellant must serve 85% of her sentence before being eligible for consideration for parole. 22 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(1).
2. State U. Pope, 2009 OK CR 9, I 4, 204 P.3d 1285, 1287.
3. State U. Hooley, 2012 OK CR 3, "I 4, 269 P.3d 949, 950.
4. Gomez v. State, 2007 OK CR 33, IT 5, 168 P.3d 1139, 1142-43.
5. Illinois U. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed. 2d 527 (1983).
6. Marshall v. State, 2010 OK CR 8, I 49, 232 P.3d 467, 479.
7. Langham U. State, 1990 OK CR 9, I 7, 787 P.2d 1279, 1281.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 (2012) - First Degree Murder
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 13.1 (2015) - Parole Eligibility
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2019) - Rule of Criminal Appeals

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:

• State U. Pope, 2009 OK CR 9, I 4, 204 P.3d 1285, 1287
• State U. Hooley, 2012 OK CR 3, I 4, 269 P.3d 949, 950
• Gomez v. State, 2007 OK CR 33, IT 5, 168 P.3d 1139, 1142-43
• Illinois U. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed. 2d 527 (1983)
• Marshall v. State, 2010 OK CR 8, I 49, 232 P.3d 467, 479
• Langham U. State, 1990 OK CR 9, I 7, 787 P.2d 1279, 1281