App. § 3.15

S-2012-166

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-166, Moises Gonzales-Tello appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Heroin. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling to suppress evidence gathered during a traffic stop. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma appealed a decision made by the district court. This decision was based on a traffic stop where law enforcement officers discovered evidence of a crime, but the evidence was later deemed inadmissible. The district court ruled that the stop had taken too long and that the officer did not have a proper reason to keep the suspect detained after the initial reason for the stop was completed. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed several unusual things that made him suspicious. He called for a drug-sniffing dog to come to the scene. Even though the officer asked for permission to search the car, he did not actually let the suspect leave and did not return his driver's license or paperwork. The dog arrived about 30 minutes after the stop began, but did not find anything. After the dog didn't indicate any signs of drugs, the officer conducted his own search and found a significant amount of heroin. The court looked closely at whether the officer had enough reason to continue holding the suspect after the initial reason for the traffic stop was accomplished. While the State argued that the officer's actions were justified, the court explained that to search a car without a warrant, an officer must have either permission from the owner or a strong reason to believe the car contains evidence of a crime. In this case, the dog did not find anything and the officer did not get enough proof that would justify a search. If there had been clear consent from the suspect for the search, the situation might have been different. However, the way the officer asked for consent made it seem as if the suspect did not truly have a choice. When the court reviewed the case, they found that the district court made a reasonable decision in ruling that the initial detention was too long and that the search was not justified. The State also argued against using the Exclusionary Rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The court did not agree with the State on this argument, as they did not provide enough support for their claim. In summary, the court decided to maintain the district court's order to suppress the evidence found during the traffic stop, agreeing that the officers did not follow the correct procedures.

Continue ReadingS-2012-166

C-2009-1033

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2009-1033, the petitioner appealed his conviction for two counts of permitting child abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for the writ of certiorari, allowing the petitioner to withdraw his plea of no contest. One judge dissented. The petitioner, Huyen Cleveland Tran, was charged in 2004, with permitting child abuse in Oklahoma County. In May 2007, the petitioner entered a no contest plea and received a deferred sentence, which means she wouldn’t have to go to prison right away if she followed certain rules. However, in 2009, the State asked the court to speed up her sentence, and the court decided she should serve five years in prison. Tran then wanted to take back her plea of no contest because she believed she didn’t fully understand it and thought she had a valid defense. She raised several issues in her appeal, including that she did not have effective legal help because her attorney represented both her and her husband, who was also charged. This was seen as a conflict of interest. The court agreed with Tran that her attorney had a conflict because he could not fully defend her without hurting her husband’s case. Since this conflict affected her legal representation, the court granted her request to withdraw her plea. The ruling means that Tran can now have a new chance to argue her case without the problems that came from the conflict of interest with her previous lawyer. One judge felt that rather than allowing Tran to withdraw her plea completely, the case should be sent back for a proper hearing with a new lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest.

Continue ReadingC-2009-1033

F-2006-736

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-736, Russell Wayne Horn, Jr. appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and unlawful possession of a controlled drug (cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions due to an illegal search of his vehicle. One judge dissented. Russell Horn was found guilty by a jury of two drug-related charges: trafficking methamphetamine and possessing cocaine. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the trafficking charge and 19.5 years for the possession charge after a police search of his home and vehicle. On February 24, 2005, police executed a search warrant at Horn’s home. When they entered, they found a large sum of money and methamphetamine. When searching Horn’s vehicle with keys found in his apartment, an officer triggered the car alarm. While trying to turn off the alarm, he opened the hood of the car and discovered a bag containing more drugs. Horn argued that the search of his vehicle was illegal, asserting that the search warrant did not specifically mention the vehicle he owned. The trial court had denied his motions to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle, and Horn's appeal claimed this was wrong. The court acknowledged that a good search warrant must clearly identify what can be searched and where. It noted Horn's apartment was described in detail, but the vehicle was only vaguely referred to as a certain vehicle, which could apply to any car. The court found that this lack of specificity made the search unauthorized, leading to the conclusion that the search of Horn's car did not comply with the law. Also, the court considered whether the parked vehicle was part of Horn's home's surroundings, which would allow police to search it. The analysis looked at various factors, concluding that the parking lot was a shared space for multiple tenants and not closely associated with Horn's apartment in a way that would protect it under the Fourth Amendment. The State had argued that even if the warrant was insufficient, the search should still be valid under the good faith rule, which allows for legal searches conducted with honest belief in their legality. However, the court disagreed, stating that the police should have followed the law by specifically describing the vehicle in the warrant. Hence, the good faith exception should not apply in this situation. As a result of the improper search, the court reversed Horn's conviction related to drug trafficking and sent it back for a new trial. The conviction for possessing cocaine was also reversed, with instructions to dismiss that charge altogether. The decision was met with dissent from some judges who believed the officers had enough reasonable cause to search the vehicle based on what they knew about Horn’s activities and the illegal substance sales occurring from his home. These dissenting opinions highlighted that the circumstances surrounding the case should have justified the warrantless search of the vehicle.

Continue ReadingF-2006-736

F-2004-871

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-871, George Shelton, Jr., appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Shelton's conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. George Shelton was found guilty after a trial. He was accused of hiding stolen things and had a history of past crimes, which meant he could face a heavier punishment. The jury decided on a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. Shelton thought this punishment was too harsh and argued that what the prosecutor did was unfair because they brought up his past crimes during the trial. He believed this was done because he had tried to defend himself. The court looked very closely at everything that happened. They thought there wasn’t enough evidence to show that the prosecutor acted unfairly against Shelton. They believed that the facts presented during the case were enough to prove he was guilty. However, they agreed with Shelton that his punishment was too much. They decided to change his sentence to five years instead of thirty-five. In short, the court upheld the conviction of Shelton but changed his punishment to be less severe. While one judge agreed with the conviction and the sentence reduction, they did not think the modification was correct and chose to disagree.

Continue ReadingF-2004-871