The State Of Oklahoma v Raynard Emory Dinkins, A.K.A Ronald Alvis Dinkins

S-2005-1250

Filed: Sep. 19, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Raynard Emory Dinkins appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, assault and battery upon a police officer, attempted destruction of evidence, and driving without a seatbelt. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, as the trial court correctly granted his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an illegal search. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there an illegal search of the defendant's person conducted by Sergeant Kirkland?
• did the trial court err in granting the motion to suppress the evidence seized?

Findings

• the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to suppress
• the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

S-2005-1250

Sep. 19, 2006

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Raynard Emory Dinkins, A.K.A Ronald Alvis Dinkins

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, PRESIDING JUDGE: Dinkins was charged by Information with Count I: Trafficking in Illegal Drugs in violation of 63 O.S. 2001, § 2-415; Count II: Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer in violation 21 O.S. 2001, § 649(B); Count III: Attempted Destruction of Evidence in violation 21 O.S. 2001 § 454, after former conviction of two or more felonies; and Count IV: Driving Without a Seatbelt in violation of 47 O.S.2001, § 12-417 in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF- 2004-2692. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the Honorable Clancy Smith denied Dinkins’s Motion to Suppress and bound him over to the district court as charged. Dinkins filed a Motion to Suppress Search, which was granted at a hearing by the Honorable P. Thomas Thornbrugh on December 14, 2005.1 The State has perfected their appeal of that ruling. The State raises the following proposition of error: 1 Dinkins had previously filed a Motion to Quash and Suppress with Brief in Support that was denied by the Honorable Gordon McAllister on October 26, 2004. 1 The district court’s ruling that defendant’s motion should be sustained, because Sergeant Kirkland conducted an illegal search of defendant’s person, was erroneous. After thoroughly considering the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required under the law and evidence. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to suppress.

Decision

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

SCOTT GENGRAS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
500 S. DENVER, SUITE 900
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE

JEFFREY D. FISCHER
403 S. CHEYENNE, SUITE 1100
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74119
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

OPINION BY: CHAPEL, P.J.
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
C. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S. 2001, § 2-415
2. 21 O.S. 2001, § 649(B)
3. 21 O.S. 2001 § 454
4. 47 O.S.2001, § 12-417
5. 22 O.S. 2001, § 1053
6. State v. Love, 960 P.2d 368, 369 (Okl.Cr.1998)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-415 (2001) - Trafficking in Illegal Drugs
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 649 (2001) - Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 454 (2001) - Attempted Destruction of Evidence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 12-417 (2001) - Driving Without a Seatbelt
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 (2001) - 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 v. Love, 960 P.2d 368, 369 (Okl.Cr.1998)