The State of Oklahoma v Matthew Ryan Wells

S-2005-866

Filed: May 31, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Matthew Ryan Wells

Summary

# Matthew Ryan Wells appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and other charges. Conviction and sentence were reversed. No judges dissented.

Decision

The District Court's ruling sustaining Appellee's motion to quash is hereby AFFIRMED, and the relief requested by the State is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was the District Court error by sustaining Appellee's Motion to Quash and Suppress?
• did Appellee have clear dominion and control over the contraband, thereby rendering the District Judge's quash ruling erroneous?
• was the District Court erroneous in suppressing the State's evidence?

Findings

• the District Court erred by sustaining Appellee's Motion to Quash and Suppress
• the District Judge's quash ruling was erroneous regarding Appellee's dominion and control over the contraband
• the District Court erred by suppressing the State's evidence
• the trial judge did not abuse her discretion regarding the impoundment of the car
• the District Court's ruling sustaining Appellee's motion to quash is hereby AFFIRMED

S-2005-866

May 31, 2006

The State of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Matthew Ryan Wells

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellee, Matthew Ryan Wells, was bound over for trial on the following charges in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2005-1913: Trafficking in Illegal Drugs; Use of a Weapon in Commission of a Crime; Failure to Obtain a Drug Stamp; Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia; and Taxes Due State. Appellee filed a motion to quash the information and suppress the bind-over, which was sustained by the District Court Judge following a hearing. The State then filed this appeal, pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2002, § 1053(1). Appellant raises the following propositions of error in this appeal:

I. The District Court erred by sustaining Appellee’s Motion to Quash and Suppress;
II. Appellee had clear dominion and control over the contraband, thus the District Judge’s quash ruling was erroneous; and
III. The District Court erred by suppressing the State’s evidence.

After thoroughly considering these propositions and the entire record before us, we find the relief requested by the State is not warranted. We therefore affirm the District Court Judge’s ruling sustaining the defendant’s motion to quash the information. Pursuant to the record before us, we find the trial judge did not abuse her discretion by ruling that the car Appellee was driving was not a proper subject for impoundment, based upon a review of the Bixby Police Department policies. Manning v. State, 1981 OK CR 75, ¶ 4, 630 P.2d 327, 329.

DECISION

The District Court’s ruling sustaining Appellee’s motion to quash is hereby AFFIRMED, and the relief requested by the State is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

[A PDF link is available here:](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2005-866_1736955392.pdf) Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Manning v. State, 1981 OK CR 75, I 4, 630 P.2d 327, 329.
2. 22 O.S.Supp.2002, § 1053(1).
3. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053(1) - Appeal from the District Court
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Mandate Rules

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:

No case citations found.