Bond Archives - OCCA Opinions

F-2021-785

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 25, 2022
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-785, Kyle Robert Forsyth appealed his conviction for sexual battery and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Forsyth's conviction but remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether he should receive credit for time served in jail. One justice dissented. Forsyth was tried without a jury and found guilty of sexual battery and larceny. The judge gave him a ten-year sentence for the sexual battery and thirty days in jail for the larceny, with the sentences to run one after the other. Forsyth argued that his rights were violated because the same judge presided over both the preliminary hearing and the trial, which he claimed broke the two-judge rule in legal procedures. However, the court found that the judge listed on the preliminary hearing was not the one who actually presided over it, so there was no error. Forsyth also argued that he should have received credit for the time he stayed in jail before sentencing. He was unable to pay bail and was in jail for nearly ten months. His lawyer pointed out that it is unfair to make someone serve a longer sentence just because they cannot afford to pay bail. The court agreed that this issue of credit for time served needed more examination. They sent the case back to see if there were other reasons that kept Forsyth in jail other than his inability to pay bail. Overall, the court upheld Forsyth’s convictions but wanted to further investigate whether he should get credit for the time he had already spent in jail.

S-2015-446

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-446, James Leonard Martinez appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating without mud flaps. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that suppressed evidence in the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Officer Porter stopped Martinez's vehicle because he believed it lacked the required mud flaps, which the officer thought was a violation of the law. However, the trial court found that Martinez's car had fenders, and according to the statute, if a vehicle has fenders, it does not need mud flaps. Thus, the officer's stop was not justified. The State argued that even if the law did not apply to Martinez's vehicle, Officer Porter had a reasonable but mistaken belief about the law when he stopped Martinez. However, the trial court ruled that the officer's misunderstanding of the law was not reasonable because the law's language was clear. The court reviewed the officer's actions and concluded that he made a mistake of law, which means he misunderstood the actual law regarding mud flaps. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress evidence gathered during the stop and to dismiss the case against Martinez. Ultimately, the court confirmed that the stop was not lawful and upheld the trial court's ruling.