Controlled Substances

F-2018-104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-104, Dameon Tyrese Lundy appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Dameon Tyrese Lundy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for having drugs and cash that suggested he intended to sell drugs. He was sentenced to sixty years in prison and had to pay a fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to money from drug sales. Lundy had two main arguments in his appeal. First, he said the trial court made a mistake by not allowing his lawyer to suppress evidence found by the police. He argued that the police did not have the right to approach him outside a bar. However, the court found that the police were allowed to speak to him in a public place and had a good reason to suspect him because they could smell marijuana and he acted suspiciously. So, they decided there was no mistake by the trial court. Secondly, Lundy claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intended to sell drugs. His defense was that the drugs were for personal use, but the court said that a reasonable jury could think that Lundy was selling drugs due to the large amount of different drugs and cash he had. This means that the evidence was enough to support his conviction. Lundy then argued that his sentence was too harsh. He pointed out that the laws changed after his crime, meaning someone charged now would face a lower maximum sentence. However, the court stated that the new laws couldn’t be applied to Lundy's case because his crime was committed before the law changed. They concluded that the sentence was proper because of his past convictions. In the end, the court upheld the original decision from the district court, meaning Lundy will have to serve his sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2018-104

F-2017-147

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRIAN A. STALEY, Appellant,** **Case No. F-2017-147** **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR 25 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:** Appellant Brian A. Staley was convicted in Caddo County District Court for various drug-related offenses and possession of a firearm. He appealed, raising eleven propositions of error. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Denial of motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search. 2. Admission of evidence concerning other controlled substances. 3. Conviction for an uncharged offense. 4. Insufficient evidence on acquiring proceeds from drug activity. 5. Insufficient evidence linking firearms to trafficking. 6. Prejudicial statements by a state trooper. 7. Improper prosecutorial arguments. 8. Insufficient evidence of knowing possession of marijuana. 9. Improper admission of irrelevant handwriting evidence. 10. Cumulative effect of errors denying a fair trial. 11. Excessive sentences. **Court Decision:** After reviewing the record, the Court affirmed Staley's convictions. **Key Findings:** - **Proposition I:** The traffic stop and subsequent consent to search were lawful, thus the motion to suppress was denied. - **Proposition II:** The evidence of other controlled substances was admissible as res gestae; hence, no abuse of discretion in its admission. - **Proposition III:** Any scrivener's error in statute citation for Count 2 did not affect substantial rights and was denied plain error review. - **Propositions IV, V, and VIII:** The evidence was sufficient for a conviction on all counts when viewed favorably to the prosecution. - **Propositions VI and VII:** Claims of evidentiary harassment and improper argument did not impede a fair trial; the trial court’s admonishments mitigated any potential prejudice. - **Proposition IX:** The handwritten note was relevant and supported the themes of trafficking and possession designed by the prosecution. - **Proposition X:** Cumulative error doctrine was not applicable as no significant errors occurred that affected the outcome. - **Proposition XI:** The sentences did not shock the conscience and were not excessive in light of the offenses committed. **Opinion of the Court:** The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** Albert Hoch, Norman, OK - **For Appellee:** Alan Rosenbaum, Caddo County District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma; William R. Holmes, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK **Opinion by:** Hudson, J. **Concurrences:** Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J. (concurring in part/dissenting in part); Lumpkin, J.; Rowland, J. **Concurring/Dissenting Opinion by Kuehn, V.P.J.:** While I agree with the majority on other claims, I dissent regarding the admission of evidence about extraneous controlled substances and the handwritten notes. I believe such evidence was improperly admitted and could have imparted an unfair prejudice. Nonetheless, this evidence did not materially affect the trial's outcome. For a detailed opinion and further reading, access the [full opinion here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2017-147_1734273240.pdf).

Continue ReadingF-2017-147

RE-2013-887

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2013-887, Collins appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the additional one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Here's a brief summary of the case: Mark Stephen Collins was charged with having child pornography in 2010. He pleaded no contest and was given a five-year sentence, with a part of it suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve it in prison if he followed certain rules. However, in 2013, he broke those rules in several ways, like failing drug tests, not attending counseling, and refusing to meet with his supervising officer. Because of this, the state asked to make him serve his whole sentence. During a hearing about the violations, the judge decided it was fair to revoke his suspended sentence because Collins had admitted to breaking the rules. Collins argued that the judge was too harsh in revoking his sentence and that his actions were due to his drug addiction. The court explained that it doesn’t have to be proven that all rules were broken, just that at least one was. Collins also believed that the judge should not have added a year of post-imprisonment supervision after revoking his sentence since it would be a longer punishment than what was originally given. The law allows a judge to require supervision after imprisonment, but the court found that the judge was not allowed to impose it in this situation because it was not part of Collins’ original sentence. In the end, the court agreed with most of the judge's decision to revoke the sentence due to the violations but took away the additional year of supervision because it was not permitted. The case was sent back to the lower court to issue a new order that matched the court's ruling.

Continue ReadingRE-2013-887

S-2009-862

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing evidence. Margaret Ann Brumfield was also charged with the same crime in a companion case numbered S-2009-862, and the same ruling applied. The case began when Trooper Johnson stopped the vehicle driven by Mr. Brumfield for speeding and discovered he did not have a valid driver's license. Mrs. Brumfield was a passenger in the vehicle. During the stop, the officer suspected Mr. Brumfield was under the influence of a drug, so he had both Brumfields sit in the patrol car while he searched the vehicle. Initially, he found nothing, and he allowed them to leave. However, after listening to a conversation the couple had in the patrol car, he suspected there might be drugs under the passenger seat. When he searched again, he found methamphetamine. The State appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that the officer did have the right to search the vehicle due to Mr. Brumfield’s behavior and suspected drug use. However, the court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that reasonable suspicion (which the trooper had) is not enough for probable cause. The initial search was not justified, leading to the suppression of the evidence found later. Thus, the court's final decision affirmed the district court’s ruling that the search was unreasonable, and therefore, the evidence obtained could not be used in court against the Brumfields.

Continue ReadingS-2009-862

S-2009-858

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle should be suppressed. The ruling was based on the fact that the officer did not have enough probable cause to conduct the search after initially letting the Brumfields go. In this case, one judge dissented. In OCCA case No. S-2009-862, Margaret Ann Brumfield also appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. The decision in her case followed the same reasoning as her husband's case, reaffirming the district court's decision to suppress evidence. The judge's ruling was similarly supported by the reasoning that the officer lacked the necessary probable cause for the searches conducted. Again, one judge dissented on the conclusion reached by the majority. The essential facts involved a traffic stop initiated because of speeding and a lack of a valid driver's license. The officer suspected drug use and searched the vehicle, which initially produced no evidence. The second search resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine after a recording revealed incriminating conversation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer's actions were not justified legally, leading to the suppression of the evidence collected.

Continue ReadingS-2009-858

F-2008-1014

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1014, Marcus Durell Hooks appealed his conviction for trafficking in controlled substances, possession of an offensive weapon in the commission of a felony, and eluding a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand the case for correction of the Judgment and Sentence. One judge dissented. Marcus was found guilty by a jury on three counts. His main issues on appeal included claims of improper evidence use, insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, excessive sentencing, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors related to jury instructions and sentencing fees. The court reviewed the propositions raised by Marcus and concluded that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion regarding the police checkpoint situation since the evidence causing the convictions was not a result of the checkpoint. The evidence showed that Marcus had joint control over the drugs and firearms involved in the case. About counsel's performance, the court found no effectiveness issues because the alleged errors did not affect the trial's outcome, nor did the sentencing appear excessively severe. The prosecutor's statements during the trial were also determined not to have harmed Marcus's case. Additionally, the court agreed with Marcus about some fees being improperly assessed but decided that overall, any errors did not combine to deny him a fair trial. Thus, while most of Marcus's complaints were rejected, the court ordered corrections related to the sentencing paperwork.

Continue ReadingF-2008-1014

F-2003-505

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-505, the appellant appealed his conviction for Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that a new trial was required because the jury was not properly instructed about the elements necessary for a felony conviction. The appellant argued that the jury was not asked whether he knowingly or intentionally maintained a place for keeping controlled substances, which was important for the severity of the penalty. Thus, the decision to impose a five-year prison sentence and a fine of $10,000 exceeded what the law allowed. Therefore, the court reversed the appellant's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2003-505

F 2001-434

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-434, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss some of the charges while affirming others. One judge dissented regarding the dismissal of a particular charge. William Forrest Mondier was found guilty of attempting to make drugs, possessing drugs, and allowing a place for drug users. The court looked at his case and found mistakes in how the jury was instructed regarding one of the charges. Because the jury didn't have the right information, they couldn't properly decide if Mondier had acted knowingly or intentionally when maintaining a place used for drugs. Therefore, that conviction was reversed. The court also found that Mondier's possession of marijuana and methamphetamine was too similar to keep both convictions, so they reversed one of them. However, his other convictions, including drug manufacturing and possession of drug paraphernalia, remained in place, as there was enough evidence against him for those charges. There were also several arguments raised by the appellant about the fairness of his trial and the enforcement of laws regarding the charges, but the court denied those claims. The final decision was to reverse and dismiss the charge of maintaining a place for drug users and the marijuana charge. The convictions for attempting to manufacture drugs and possessing paraphernalia were affirmed. One judge disagreed with the dismissal and wanted a new trial instead.

Continue ReadingF 2001-434