The State Of Oklahoma v Joshua Kyle Rhynard

S-2022-41

Filed: Dec. 15, 2022

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State of Oklahoma

Summary

Joshua Kyle Rhynard appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled drugs and firearms. Conviction and sentence were dismissed because the State of Oklahoma's appeal was rejected. Judge Hudson dissented from the majority opinion. In this case, Rhynard was charged with having illegal drugs and guns after police searched his home in Ponca City. The police had a search warrant, but the address on the warrant was wrong, causing the trial court to throw out the evidence found during the search. The State of Oklahoma believed the trial court made a mistake by suppressing the search warrant, and it tried to appeal this decision. The appeal was complicated because the State did not follow specific rules when presenting their case. They failed to show that the evidence they lost was crucial to their ability to continue the case against Rhynard. The majority of the court decided that they could not take the appeal and dismissed it, meaning Rhynard's conviction remained overturned. However, Judge Hudson disagreed, arguing that the State's claims were valid and that the appeal should have been allowed, suggesting that the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence was not justified.

Decision

We find that the State has not shown, and the record does not reflect, that review of this appeal is in the best interest of justice. The State's appeal in this matter is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2022), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there sufficient particularity in the search warrant regarding the place to be searched?
• did the existence of innocent technical errors in the search warrant allow for the warrant's validity to be excused due to an officer's personal knowledge?
• did the trial court err in not applying the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement?
• did the State properly demonstrate that the appeal was in the best interests of justice?
• did the State comply with the briefing requirements set forth in the court's rules?

Findings

• the court erred in dismissing the appeal due to the State's failure to show best interests of justice
• the court erred in waiving the State's propositions of error based on non-compliance with briefing requirements
• the trial court's decision to suppress evidence was an abuse of discretion
• the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies

S-2022-41

Dec. 15, 2022

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Joshua Kyle Rhynard

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

MUSSEMAN, JUDGE: The State of Oklahoma charged Joshua Kyle Rhynard, Appellee, by Information in the District Court of Kay County, Case No. CF-2021-245, with Count 1: Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug With Intent To Distribute (Methamphetamine); Count 2: Possession of Firearm After Former Felony Conviction; Count 3: Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana); and Count 4: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. These charges arose from evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant by police on April 30, 2021, at Appellee’s residence in Ponca City. Appellant, the State of Oklahoma, now appeals and raises three propositions of error. In Proposition I, the State argues that the trial court erred in suppressing the search warrant because the warrant contained sufficient particularity of the place to be searched. In Proposition II, the State argues that innocent technical errors in a search warrant found within the description of the location to be searched are excused where an officer with personal knowledge of the address to be searched participates in the execution of the warrant. In Proposition III, the State argues the trial court erred in failing to apply the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement.

We must first address whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. [T]he State can only bring this appeal if it is authorized by one of the limited instances listed in Section 1053 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes. This statutory authority cannot be enlarged by construction. State U. Gilchrist, 2017 OK CR 25, I 9, 422 P.3d 182, 184. To determine whether section 1053 affords the State an appeal, we review the nature of the judgment or order below to ascertain if it falls within Section 1053’s jurisdictional limits. Here, the State has sought relief pursuant to subsection 1053(5) which allows review upon a pretrial order, decision, or judgment suppressing evidence where appellate review of the issue would be in the best interest of justice. 22 O.S.2011, § 1053 (emphasis added).

We have defined the phrase ‘best interests of justice’ to mean that the evidence suppressed forms a substantial part of the proof of the pending charge, and the State’s ability to prosecute the case is substantially impaired or restricted absent the suppressed or excluded evidence. State v. Sayerwinnie, 2007 OK CR 11, I 6, 157 P.3d 137, 139. The State’s brief fails to address best interest of justice, as though it is not a statutory requirement. The State has made no showing in its appeal brief that it cannot proceed without the suppressed evidence. This showing is foundational to the appeal and allowing it to proceed would effectively rewrite subsection 5 to allow the State to appeal any pretrial order, decision, or judgment suppressing evidence.

While the State’s failure to trigger this Court’s jurisdiction under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(5) is fatal, we also note that the State failed to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in this Court’s own rules. Rule 3.5(A)(4) requires that an Appellant must provide a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review, with appropriate references to the record. Rule 3.5(A)(5) separately requires that an Appellant’s brief must include [a]n argument, containing the contentions of the appellant, which sets forth all assignments of error, supported by citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record.

Review of suppression of evidence obtained through a search warrant is based upon a totality of the circumstances, which requires a thorough look at the particular facts of the case. In this appeal, Appellant’s brief does include a Statement of Facts that refers back to the record. Appellant’s brief, however, does not include references to the record in the argument. As subsection (A)(4) and (A)(5) are distinct requirements, compliance with one is not compliance with the other. Furthermore, the Statement of Facts presented by Appellant is insufficient to support the propositions argued. The State has not complied with the requirements set forth in Rule 3.5. The best interests of justice standard has not been met in this case. Furthermore, the State has waived its three propositions of error by failing to comply with Rule 3.5 in each proposition. Therefore, we decline to review the State’s appeal as it does not qualify under the statutory requirements for an appeal. The State’s appeal is not proper and is hereby DISMISSED.

DECISION

We find that the State has not shown, and the record does not reflect, that review of this appeal is in the best interest of justice. The State’s appeal in this matter is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2022), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 1 A supplemental Information was filed by the State alleging Appellee has two prior felony convictions.
2. 2 Specifically, we review the substance of the relief requested regardless of the title of the pleading regardless of the title affixed to the motion or pleading.
3. 3 allow the State to appeal any pretrial order, decision, or judgment suppressing evidence.
4. 4 to the record in the argument.
5. 5 Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2022), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
6. 2 In the search warrant application, Officer Sharp reported that informant Ryan O'Hara told him the address for Appellee's apartment was "518 1/2 South Fourth St. in Ponca City". At preliminary hearing, however, O'Hara was asked whether he remembered the address that he gave Officer Sharp for Appellee's apartment. His response was "No. I didn't-I didn't know the address".
7. 3 In this regard, the search warrant stated: The place to be searched is described as a two-story single family dwelling garage apartment with white siding and grey composite shingles on the roof. On the north side of the building is a staircase leading to the second level to access the apartment. The front door of the residence faces north on the second level. Your affiant has been to the described residence and can return to the above address.
8. 4 Appellee complains that the appeal record contains only black and white photographs. This Court, however, has the original transcripts and the original exhibits admitted during the suppression hearing. The photographic exhibits made part of the record on appeal before this Court are all color photographs.
9. 5 to suppress evidence where appellate review of the issue would be in the best interest of justice.
10. 6 The State has made no showing that it cannot proceed without the suppressed evidence.
11. 7 The manifest purpose of [the] particularity requirement was to prevent general searches.
12. 8 The test is an objective one that asks whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization.
13. 9 sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.
14. 10 the exclusionary rule applies "only where it 'results in appreciable deterrence." Herring, 555 U.S. at 141 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 909) (emphasis added).
15. 11 Fourth Amendment violations from suppression of the evidence in this case.
16. 12 "[T]he exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence." Herring, 555 U.S. at 145.
17. 13 I find that the District Court abused its discretion in suppressing the evidence in this case based on the purported Fourth Amendment violation.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Proceedings for Sentencing
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 (2011) - Appeals by the State
• Okla. Const. art. 2, § 30 - Search and Seizure

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. Gilchrist, 2017 OK CR 25, I 9, 422 P.3d 182, 184
• State v. Sayerwinnie, 2007 OK CR 11, I 6, 157 P.3d 137, 139
• Marshall v. State, 2010 OK CR 8, I 49, 232 P.3d 467, 479
• State v. Lefebure, 1994 OK CR 38, I 3, 875 P.2d 431, 432
• State v. Ballenger, 2022 OK CR 11, IF 16, 514 P.3d 478, 482
• State v. Wallace, 2019 OK CR 10, I 20, 442 P.3d 175, 181
• State v. Sittingdown, 2010 OK CR 22, IT 17, 240 P.3d 714, 718
• Hager v. State, 1986 OK CR 149, II 6-7, 726 P.2d 1181, 1183
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)
• Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971)
• Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009)
• Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987)
• Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967)
• United States v. Otero, 563 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2009)