The State of Oklahoma v Clifford Putman

S-2008-176

Filed: Oct. 9, 2008

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Clifford Putman

Summary

Clifford Putman appealed his conviction for several crimes, including drug and firearm offenses. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the court. Judge Lewis disagreed with the majority opinion.

Decision

The ruling suppressing evidence is hereby AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an error in the trial court's refusal to allow Detective Wofford to testify regarding specific statements made by Jocella Anthony granting consent to search the hotel room?
• Did the trial court err in holding that the officers did not have authority to search the locked safe in the motel room?

Findings

• the trial court's hearsay rulings were not an abuse of discretion
• the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by finding the officers should have obtained a warrant before searching the locked motel room safe
• the ruling suppressing evidence is hereby AFFIRMED

S-2008-176

Oct. 9, 2008

The State of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Clifford Putman

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellee was charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2007-4556 with several crimes: Trafficking in Cocaine Base (Count I), in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-415; Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute (Count II), in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-501; Possession of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony (Count III), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2006, § 1287; Possession of a Firearm after Former Conviction (Count V), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2005, § 1283; and Possession of Drug Proceeds (Count VII), in violation of 63 O.S.2001, § 503.1.

Appellee filed a motion to suppress evidence. At the hearing thereon, the trial court ruled that evidence the State obtained from a locked safe inside the motel room where Appellee was arrested should be suppressed. Appellant, the State of Oklahoma, then appealed from that decision pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2002, § 1053(5), which allows State appeals of pretrial orders suppressing or excluding evidence where appellate review would be in the best interests of justice.

Appellant raises the following propositions of error in this appeal:

I. The trial court erred by not allowing Detective Wofford to testify to the specific statements made to him by Jocella Anthony granting consent to search the hotel room; and

II. The trial court erred by holding that the officers did not have authority to search the safe.

After thoroughly considering these propositions and the entire record, we find regarding proposition one and two, the trial court’s hearsay rulings were not an abuse of discretion, under this record, and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by finding the officers should have obtained a warrant before searching the locked motel room safe.

Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, 12, 876 P.2d 690, 693; State v. Sayerwinnie, 2007 OK CR 11, 157 P.3d 137; U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171, 94 S.Ct. 988, 993, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); Fields v. State, 1991 OK CR 36, 308 P.2d 79, 81.

DECISION

The ruling suppressing evidence is hereby AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL & ON APPEAL

DAVID PRATER & PATRICK QUILLAN

GARY GINGRICH

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

228 ROBERT S. KERR, SUITE 340

OKLAHOMA COUNTY D.A’S OFFICE

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102

320 ROBERT S. KERR, SUITE 505

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, P.J.

C. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: CONCUR

CHAPEL, J.: CONCUR

A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR

LEWIS, J.: CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-415
2. 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-501
3. 21 O.S.Supp.2006, § 1287
4. 21 O.S.Supp.2005, § 1283
5. 63 O.S.2001, § 503.1
6. 22 O.S.Supp.2002, § 1053(5)
7. Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 2, 876 P.2d 690, 693
8. State v. Sayerwinnie, 2007 OK CR 11, 157 P.3d 137
9. U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171, 94 S.Ct. 988, 993, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974)
10. Fields v. State, 1991 OK CR 36, 308 P.2d 79, 81

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-415 (2004) - Trafficking in Cocaine Base
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-501 (2004) - Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1287 (2006) - Possession of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283 (2005) - Possession of a Firearm after Former Conviction
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 503.1 (2001) - Possession of Drug Proceeds
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 (2002) - Appeals of Pretrial Orders

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:

• Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 2, 876 P.2d 690, 693
• State v. Sayerwinnie, 2007 OK CR 11, 157 P.3d 137
• U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171, 94 S.Ct. 988, 993, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974)
• Fields v. State, 1991 OK CR 36, 308 P.2d 79, 81