Blog

S-2009-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

State Of Oklahoma v Charles Stephens

S-2009-567

Filed: May 11, 2010

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Charles Stephens appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Distribute and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The court upheld his conviction and sentence of suppression of certain evidence. Judge Lewis dissented.

Decision

The order of the District Court, suppressing certain evidence in this case, is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

  • was the magistrate's ruling sustaining the defendant's motion to suppress erroneous?
  • had the defendant abandoned any interest in the contraband recovered outside his residence?
  • did the district court err in concluding that it was bound by the magistrate's ruling suppressing some of the State's evidence?

Findings

  • the district court correctly concluded that the magistrate's ruling was final, and the State's failure to appeal forecloses further review
  • the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the remaining evidence was the direct product of illegal police conduct
  • the order of the District Court, suppressing certain evidence, is AFFIRMED

S-2009-567

May 11, 2010

State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Charles Stephens

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Charles Stephens was charged in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2008-4901, with Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Distribute (63 O.S.Supp.2005, § 2-401(B)(2)) and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-405), After Conviction of Eight Felonies. The charges were filed after police executed a search warrant at Stephens’s Tulsa apartment on September 27, 2008. On February 6, 2009, Stephens filed a motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the search. Preliminary hearing was held March 25, 2009 before the Honorable P. Thomas Thornbrugh, District Judge, who ruled that certain evidence should be suppressed, but that other evidence should not. The magistrate found the remaining evidence sufficient to warrant bindover on Count 1. The State failed to perfect an appeal from the magistrate’s suppression order. After bindover, the defendant moved the district court to suppress the remaining evidence under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. In response, the State asked the district court to revisit the magistrate’s suppression ruling. At a hearing held May 27-28, 2009, the Honorable Clancy Smith, District Judge, concluded that (1) the magistrate’s suppression order was not reviewable, as the State had waived its right to appeal therefrom; and (2) taking the magistrate’s ruling on the warrant as final, the remaining evidence must also be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The State timely perfected an appeal of this ruling pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2002, § 1053(5).

The State raises the following propositions of error:

1. The magistrate’s ruling, sustaining the defendant’s motion to suppress, was erroneous.
2. The defendant had abandoned any interest in the contraband recovered outside his residence.
3. The district court erred in concluding that it was bound by the magistrate’s ruling suppressing some of the State’s evidence.

After thorough consideration of the propositions, and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find as follows. As to Propositions 1 and 3, the district court correctly concluded that the magistrate’s ruling, suppressing certain evidence at preliminary hearing, was final, given that the State failed to follow procedures for appealing that ruling. The State’s failure to appeal the magistrate’s ruling to the district court also forecloses any review by this Court. 22 O.S.2001, §§ 1089.1, 1089.3; State v. Young, 1999 OK CR 14 , II 7-10, 989 P.2d 949, 951-52; State v. Barnes, 1997 OK CR 81, IT 5, 952 P.2d 1001, 1002. Propositions 1 and 3 are denied.

As to Proposition 2, having properly concluded that the magistrate’s suppression order was not reviewable, the district court further concluded that the evidence which was not suppressed by the magistrate was, in fact, the direct product of police conduct that the magistrate (via the suppression order) had determined to be illegal. Given the undisputed facts and the applicable law, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in so finding. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1564 (10th Cir. 1993); Leigh U. State, 1978 OK CR 135, 11 14-17, 587 P.2d 1379, 1383-84.

DECISION

The order of the District Court, suppressing certain evidence in this case, is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

  1. 63 O.S.Supp.2005, § 2-401(B)(2)
  2. 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-405
  3. 22 O.S.Supp.2002, § 1053(5)
  4. 22 O.S.2001, §§ 1089.1, 1089.3
  5. State v. Young, 1999 OK CR 14, II 7-10, 989 P.2d 949, 951-52
  6. State v. Barnes, 1997 OK CR 81, IT 5, 952 P.2d 1001, 1002
  7. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)
  8. United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1564 (10th Cir. 1993)
  9. Leigh U. State, 1978 OK CR 135, 11 14-17, 587 P.2d 1379, 1383-84
  10. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

  • Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401(B)(2) - Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Distribute
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-405 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053(5) - Appeal Procedures
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1089.1 - The Suppression of Evidence
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1089.3 - Review of Suppression Orders

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

  • 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Reproduction Rights
  • 22 O.S. § 1053(5) - Appeals from District Court
  • 22 O.S. § 1089.1 - Waiver of Appeal
  • 22 O.S. § 1089.3 - Review by Court

    • Other citations:

    No other rule citations found.

    Case citations:

    • State v. Young, 1999 OK CR 14, II 7-10, 989 P.2d 949, 951-52
    • State v. Barnes, 1997 OK CR 81, IT 5, 952 P.2d 1001, 1002
    • Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)
    • United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1564 (10th Cir. 1993)
    • Leigh U. State, 1978 OK CR 135, 11 14-17, 587 P.2d 1379, 1383-84

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,