Bad Faith Archives - OCCA Opinions

S-2015-771

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 8, 2018
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.

S-2015-672

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 15, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA Case No. S-2015-672, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the State's appeal and deny the petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus. The dissenting opinion was noted by one member of the court. This case involves Jeremy Scott Niederbuhl, who was charged on December 13, 2013, for trying to break into a home. After attending a barbeque at the homeowner's house, Niederbuhl returned hours later and attempted to enter the home through a door and a window. The homeowner, Mr. Scott, fired shots, hitting Niederbuhl, who then went to the hospital and remained there for two weeks. The legal process began in 2013 when the charges were filed. However, Niederbuhl only found out about the charges in late 2014 when he turned himself in for a different issue. His lawyer argued that there were important text messages between Niederbuhl and the homeowner that could help his case, but the State did not provide this evidence, leading to a significant delay in the trial. On July 17, 2015, the trial court dismissed the case, agreeing that Niederbuhl's rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated due to the State’s lack of action and bad faith. The court believed the State did not follow its obligation to turn over evidence, which was a significant factor in its decision to dismiss the case. The State disagreed with the trial court's dismissal and filed a motion to reconsider the ruling. However, the trial court decided it couldn’t consider this motion because the State already filed an appeal. The State then appealed the dismissal, claiming the trial court made errors in its ruling and that the dismissal did not follow legal procedures. However, the court decided that the State’s appeal was not valid since it did not follow specific laws regarding when the State can appeal a dismissal. In addition to the appeal, the State also filed a petition requesting an order based on their belief that the trial court made mistakes in its rulings. However, the appellate court concluded that the State did not meet the requirements to get an extraordinary writ, which is a special type of order. In summary, the appellate court dismissed the State's appeal and told the case to go back to the District Court for further actions. The petition for the extraordinary writ was also denied, indicating that the appellate court found no legal basis for the State’s claims.

F-2005-963

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 25, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.