In OCCA case No. RE-2013-848, a person appealed his conviction for attempting to make methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the person's suspended sentence because the hearing on the revocation was not held within the required twenty days. The court reversed the revocation and sent the case back for further actions. One judge dissented from this opinion.
In OCCA case No. F-2013-812, Alphie Phillip McKinney appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses, including Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of his convictions but also reversed two of them. A dissenting opinion was provided on one of the points regarding multiple punishments. The case involved McKinney being found guilty by a jury of various drug crimes. The jury's recommended punishment included many years of imprisonment and fines. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. McKinney raised several arguments in his appeal, seeking to challenge the fairness of his trial and the legality of his sentences. One major point of contention was whether the prosecutor unfairly excluded certain jurors based on race, claiming violation of equal protection rights. The court decided that McKinney did not prove purposeful discrimination and upheld the decisions made by the trial court regarding jury selection. Another argument was about the prosecutor's questioning related to McKinney’s past drug possession case during the trial. The court found that since McKinney had already spoken about his past, the prosecutor's questions did not harm his case. McKinney’s attempt to argue that his multiple convictions for possession of different drugs should be treated as one was considered. The court found that having several drugs at once can still lead to multiple charges under the law. However, they also concluded that McKinney’s convictions for possession in some counts were in error because he could only be punished once for a single action of possession involving multiple drugs. The court further ruled on McKinney's claims that his punishments for different crimes related to the same act went against legal protections against being punished multiple times for the same behavior. The court agreed with some points raised by McKinney about this and decided to reverse two of his possession convictions. However, they maintained that his trafficking conviction and another possession charge did not violate those protections because they fell under different legal conditions. Lastly, McKinney argued that his attorney did not do a good job representing him during the trial. The court reviewed this claim but decided that he did not show that he had suffered any harm from his attorney’s actions and thus did not grant relief based on this argument. In summary, the judgments in Counts I, II, IV, and VI were upheld, while the judgments in Counts III and V were reversed and sent back with instructions to dismiss those charges. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed on how some arguments about multiple punishments were handled. Another judge also showed support for the prosecution's handling of certain charges but felt differently regarding the evaluation of potential double punishments.
In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0885, Lela Mae Goodwin appealed her conviction for violation of her probation due to several reasons, including drug use and not attending treatment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of her suspended sentences but ordered the district court to remove a part that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-559, Henry James, Jr. appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine and marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana but affirmed his convictions for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. One judge dissented. Henry James was charged with having drugs, specifically cocaine and marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in Tulsa County. The charging document combined the possession charges into one count but listed two theories: possession of cocaine (a felony) and possession of marijuana (a misdemeanor). During the trial, the judge split these theories into separate charges for the jury to consider, leading to a verdict of guilty for both. As a result, James received sentences for both charges but they would run at the same time, so he didn't serve extra time. James felt it was unfair that he was found guilty of two crimes from what started as one charge. The court agreed that it was wrong to give him two convictions based on a single charge since the state didn't give him notice that he could face more than one conviction. They noted that James was not properly informed that he could be punished for both drugs, which could lead to confusion. The court decided to dismiss the conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana because of this error. However, they believed his sentence for unlawful possession of cocaine was fair and appropriate, so they did not change that. James also argued that admitting certain information could have negatively affected his case, but the court disagreed and found no significant error from that. Overall, James's judgment for unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia was confirmed, but the marijuana conviction was overturned.
In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.
In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.
In OCCA case No. RE 2012-0711, Creekmore appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order revoking Creekmore's suspended sentence and remand for a new hearing. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. RE-2012-590, Todd Aaron Henderson appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case back to the District Court of Tulsa County with instructions to vacate the order revoking Henderson's suspended sentence and dismiss the State's application to revoke. No judge dissented. Henderson had first entered a guilty plea for Driving Under the Influence in 2009, and his sentence was put on hold while he completed a drug court program. After successfully finishing the program in January 2011, his charge was changed to a misdemeanor, and he was given a one-year suspended sentence. However, in January 2012, he was stopped by police and faced new charges, including a second DUI. Following these new charges, the State requested to revoke his suspended sentence. In June 2012, the court revoked Henderson's suspended sentence based on the new charges. On appeal, Henderson argued that the court did not have the authority to revoke his sentence because the State filed the application for revocation one day after his sentence had completed. The State agreed with Henderson, stating that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the sentence since the request was submitted after the completion of the suspended sentence. The court ruled in favor of Henderson, reversing the revocation, and ordered the case to be remanded with instructions to dismiss the State's application to revoke his sentence.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-287, Jason Harvey Thompson appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition and remand the case for a hearing. One judge dissented. Thompson had pleaded guilty to two charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for the first charge and one year for the second, which would be served at the same time as the first. He later tried to withdraw his guilty plea because he felt he did not receive good help from his lawyer when he was negotiating his plea agreement. He also claimed that the court did not properly check if he understood what he was doing when he accepted the plea and that the facts didn’t support his guilty plea. When Thompson asked to withdraw his plea, the trial court denied his request without holding a hearing on it. Thompson then took his case to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, saying that the trial court should have listened to his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The Appeals Court looked at all the information, including the legal rules, and found that the trial court did not follow the required procedures when Thompson wanted to withdraw his plea. According to the rules, the court is required to hold a hearing when someone asks to withdraw a plea, and since this did not happen, the Appeals Court said they needed to send the case back for a hearing. The Appeals Court also addressed an issue with the paperwork related to Thompson's charges, noting that some information in the sentencing document was wrong and needed to be corrected. In conclusion, the Appeals Court granted Thompson's petition, meaning he will get a chance to explain why he wants to withdraw his guilty plea in a new hearing, and they ordered the trial court to fix the sentencing paperwork.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-548, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges including unlawful possession of a firearm and drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, finding that the trial court failed to properly inform the appellant about the dangers of representing himself. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-651, Frank Leroy Gibson appealed his conviction for Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Gibson's convictions but modified his sentence on Count I to 25 years of imprisonment instead of Life. One judge dissented regarding the sentencing modification. Gibson was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing drug paraphernalia after a police search of his home. The jury considered various pieces of evidence, including burned pseudoephedrine blister packs and a coffee grinder with traces of the drug. Gibson argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he manufactured methamphetamine, but the court disagreed, stating sufficient circumstantial evidence pointed to his involvement. Gibson also raised concerns about how the jury was instructed regarding a question they had during sentencing discussions. He claimed the response given by the judge was improper. However, the court found that the response did not negatively affect his rights. Another point of appeal involved how the State proved Gibson’s prior felony convictions. Gibson argued that the use of certain documents to establish his past convictions was wrong. The court noted he did not object to this during the trial, so it upheld the use of the documents. Gibson also claimed that his post-arrest silence was mentioned inappropriately during the trial, which could lead to unfair treatment. The court assessed this point and found that the reference did not affect the fairness of the trial overall. Gibson argued that the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial, making inflammatory comments and expressing personal opinions. The court examined these claims and concluded that while some comments by the prosecutor were improper, they did not affect the outcome of the trial. There was also a concern about the trial judge informing the jury that Gibson's attorney was facing criminal charges. The court acknowledged the trial court's comments were poorly chosen but ultimately decided that they did not cause significant harm to Gibson’s case. The court determined that while Gibson's sentence was initially excessive due to the previous errors and comments related to the trial, the evidence of his guilt was strong, and thus reduced his sentence on the methamphetamine charge to 25 years in prison. The possession charge remained unchanged and the sentences were to run concurrently. In conclusion, while Gibson’s convictions were upheld, the court modified his sentence for fairness considering the cumulative effects of the prosecutor's statements and the judge's comments.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-1019 and RE-2009-1020, the appellant appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the full revocation of his seven-year suspended sentences to a three-year revocation with four years remaining suspended. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who had previously pleaded guilty to multiple drug charges and received a suspended sentence. Later, the State accused him of violating his probation by committing new crimes. The judge found enough evidence to revoke his entire suspended sentence, which the appellant contested. The appellant argued that a small amount of marijuana found in a car he was driving was not enough to prove he controlled it because it was not his car. He also claimed that revoking his entire sentence was too harsh and should be changed. However, the court upheld the judge's finding that the appellant indeed had control over the marijuana since he was driving the car alone and had acknowledged ownership of the drug paraphernalia in the car. The court found merit in the appellant's argument about the harshness of the punishment because the reasons for revoking the full sentence were incorrect. The judge had based his decision on prior allegations that didn't hold up to factual scrutiny during the revocation hearing. The violations were also deemed minor and were not even prosecuted. In the end, the court decided to cut the original seven-year full revocation down to three years while keeping four years suspended, demonstrating that the punishment still reflected the violations but was fairer given the circumstances.
In OCCA case No. RE-2009-1019, Rico Raynelle Pearson appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation from a full seven years to three years with four years remaining suspended. One judge dissented. The case involved two prior cases where Pearson pleaded guilty to drug-related charges and received a suspended sentence of seven years. However, the State filed an application to revoke his suspended sentence after he allegedly committed new violations, including possession of drugs and traffic offenses. During the revocation hearing, the judge determined that Pearson had violated his probation and revoked his suspended sentence completely. However, Pearson argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough and that the punishment was too harsh for the minor violations he committed. The appeals court agreed that the original decision to revoke the entire sentence was excessive because the stated reasons were not correct and the violations were minor. The court noted that one reason for the revocation was based on a misunderstanding regarding earlier convictions that were not relevant. Consequently, they reduced the length of the revocation while still affirming the revocation of some portion of his sentences.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-287, Juan Carlos Hernandez-Montanez appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including Second Degree Burglary, Kidnapping, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to modify his ten-year sentence for Second Degree Burglary to seven years but upheld the rest of the convictions and sentencing. One judge dissented regarding the review process. Hernandez-Montanez was initially charged with many serious crimes but agreed to a plea deal that changed the charges. He pleaded guilty to the amended counts and was sentenced to serve a total of time in prison and jail. After a short period, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, claiming it wasn't done correctly. The case was reviewed, and the court looked closely at the reasons Hernandez-Montanez gave for wanting to withdraw his plea. He said his ten-year sentence was too long and that the court did not fully check if he understood his guilty plea. He also claimed he did not get proper help from his attorney during the process. After reviewing everything, the court found that Hernandez-Montanez's arguments did not hold up. They decided that there was a good reason to accept his guilty plea and that he understood what he was doing. The court modified one part of his sentence but left the rest as it was. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about some legal processes.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-1133, Jona Ann Montgomery appealed her conviction for Second Degree Murder and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Second Degree Murder and affirmed the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. One judge dissented. Jona Ann Montgomery was tried in Pittsburg County for her involvement in a tragic incident where she hit two children with her car while speeding near a crowded football game. The younger child, a ten-year-old girl, unfortunately died, while her brother survived. After the accident, Montgomery left the scene but left behind her belongings in the car. The main issue in Montgomery's appeal was the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the possibility of a lesser charge known as Misdemeanor Manslaughter. Initially, the law at the time of Montgomery's trial did not permit this instruction, and her attorney argued against it. However, shortly after the trial, a higher court changed its stance on this law, ruling that driving while impaired could indeed be used for a Misdemeanor Manslaughter charge. Montgomery argued that she should receive a new trial based on this new rule. The court reviewed the situation and agreed that the trial court had made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider this lesser charge. They believed that a fair jury could have potentially found Montgomery guilty of Misdemeanor Manslaughter instead of Second Degree Murder, given the circumstances of the case. Montgomery also raised concerns about other evidence that was presented during her trial. This included items found in her vehicle that were linked to drug use and remarks made during the trial suggesting she showed no remorse for her actions. The court found that much of this evidence was not necessary and could unfairly bias the jury against Montgomery. The decision ultimately led to the reversal of her conviction for Second Degree Murder because of the instructional error on Misdemeanor Manslaughter, while they upheld the conviction for Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. The judges aimed to ensure that future trials would avoid the errors found in Montgomery's case.
In OCCA case No. F 2007-1165, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order that terminated his participation in the Drug Court program and instructed to reinstate him into the program. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant pled guilty to two charges related to drug possession in 2003 and was given a sentence with most of it suspended. After allegations of new violations in 2006, he entered the Drug Court program, which aimed to help him stay away from drugs. However, the State filed to terminate him from the program in 2007, claiming he violated the rules. During the appeal, the appellant argued that the court made a mistake by ending his participation in Drug Court. The court considered whether the reasons for termination were valid. The violations included not completing community service, not writing sentences for a sanction, and not bringing a required book to a meeting. However, evidence showed that the appellant was making progress, had a job, and had been clean for a good period. The court found that the claimed violations weren't enough to justify removing him from the program because there was no clear deadline for completing the tasks. The court emphasized that relapses can happen during rehabilitation and that participants should be given chances to improve. Ultimately, they believed that the appellant was still on the right path and deserved to stay in the Drug Court program. The decision was to reverse the termination and allow the appellant to continue with the program. The dissenting opinion argued that the appellant had not followed the rules enough and that the court had to be strict to help him take responsibility for his actions.
In OCCA case No. F 2008-287, Matthew Thornbrough appealed his conviction for several counts, including possession of a firearm and operating a police radio. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction for operating a police radio and ordered it to be dismissed, while affirming his convictions for the other charges. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-269, Victor Allen Martin appealed his conviction for several drug offenses, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of Martin's convictions for possessing methamphetamine without affixing a tax stamp, as there was not enough evidence to support that charge. The court affirmed his other convictions and sentences, agreeing that the evidence was sufficient for them. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-987, Jimmy Douglas Letterman appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled drug (methamphetamine), unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia, but reversed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1182, Bryan Matthew Carroll appealed his conviction for multiple offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse some of his convictions and modify others. One judge dissented. Carroll was found guilty by a jury of several charges. These charges included Assault and/or Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, among others. The jury sentenced him to various fines and jail time for these offenses. Carroll argued that he was unfairly punished for some offenses and that there was not enough evidence to support the charges against him, especially for the more serious ones like Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He claimed his rights were violated and that he did not receive fair representation from his lawyer. In looking at Carroll's appeal, the court decided to dismiss some of the judgments against him, specifically the Assault and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charges. The court found that the evidence did not convincingly support the Assault charge and there was not enough proof that Carroll was intending to use the paraphernalia for drugs. For the Attempting to Elude charge, the court noted that Carroll was also convicted for not stopping at a stop sign while trying to escape from the police, which should not happen according to legal rules. The court ruled that one of the offenses was covered by the other, and that means Carroll was unfairly charged twice for one action. As for other charges, the court changed the punishment for speeding because the jury was not correctly informed about the possible penalties. They modified Carroll's sentence for that charge but kept the other sentences intact, concluding that they were fair based on what happened. In summary, Carroll's case showed that even when someone is charged with multiple offenses, it's important for the legal system to follow rules to ensure fairness. The court made changes that reflected these principles, showing that justice is essential in every case.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-619, Ralph Emerson Jones, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Two judges dissented. Ralph Jones was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years in prison. He believed that the evidence against him was not enough to prove he knew he had the drug, claiming that just having drug paraphernalia was not good enough for a conviction. When reviewing the case, the court found that there was a problem during the trial. Jones was only allowed to use three of his five chances to challenge potential jurors, which is not what the law says should happen. This was seen as a violation of his rights, and the court ruled that he should get a new trial. The final decision was to throw out Jones’s conviction and start the trial over again. Two judges disagreed with this decision, arguing that the appeals court should only look at issues that were raised during the trial and that the evidence actually supported Jones’s conviction. They felt that giving him another chance could lead to unnecessary complications since he might not even want to go through a new trial.
In OCCA case No. S-2005-657, the State of Oklahoma appealed a ruling related to two individuals who were accused of having marijuana with the intent to distribute, along with drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that excluded certain evidence. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The police received a report that someone smelled marijuana coming from a house. When an officer arrived at the scene, he also smelled the marijuana and entered the home without permission. He searched a few areas and found marijuana and a pipe. The two accused individuals stated that the police officer had no right to enter or search their home. Eventually, a search warrant was issued based on the officer's report of the smell of marijuana. However, during a preliminary hearing, it was decided that the initial search was illegal because the officer did not have permission to enter the house and there were no emergency reasons to justify his actions. The judge in the lower court decided that the evidence collected from the illegal search could not be used to support the search warrant, meaning that the search warrant itself could not stand. Since there was no valid reason to issue the search warrant without the evidence from the initial illegal search, the evidence collected after the warrant was also thrown out. The state argued that the smell of marijuana alone could be enough to justify the search warrant. Still, the judge said that strong evidence was needed and that the warrant was based too much on the illegal findings from the first search. This led the court to agree that the evidence against the accused individuals could not be used, affirming the earlier decision made by the lower court. In short, the court ruled that because the initial search was illegal, it weakened the case against the accused, and thus their evidence should not be included.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-772, Amy Marie Flippence appealed her conviction for multiple charges, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and child endangerment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some charges but reversed one conviction for possession of a precursor and also reversed the child endangerment convictions, ordering them to be dismissed. One judge dissented regarding the conspiracy conviction.
In OCCA case No. RE-2003-455, Janis Gale McAbee appealed her conviction for the unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence. One judge dissented. McAbee had originally pled guilty to the charges and received a five-year suspended sentence, which meant she would not have to serve time in prison if she followed the rules of her probation. However, the state claimed that she broke those rules by committing new crimes. A petition was filed to revoke her suspended sentence, and during the hearing, the judge decided that the evidence collected by the police could still be used in the revocation hearing even if it may have been obtained inappropriately. The judge believed that the police did not act so wrongly that it would be shocking or unfair. After hearing the evidence, the judge found that McAbee had violated her probation. Even though she argued that the evidence was not enough to support the revocation, the court disagreed and said that what was found was enough to prove she broke the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep McAbee's sentence as it was but ordered a correction to the records to show that one of her sentences should actually have been one year instead of five years. The court affirmed the lower court's decision while making this correction.
In OCCA case No. S-2003-445, the State appealed the decision regarding Joey Dean Taylor's conviction for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling. One judge dissented. The case began when Joey Dean Taylor was a passenger in a pickup truck that was stopped by a deputy for speeding. During the stop, the deputy asked both the driver and Taylor if he could search them. The driver consented, but Taylor said yes to a pat-down search. After the search, the deputy found knives and a syringe in Taylor's pocket. Taylor was later arrested when methamphetamine was discovered in his hand at the jail. The lower court found that Taylor did not truly consent to the search, and the higher court agreed that the State did not provide enough evidence to show the consent was voluntary. They ruled that the earlier decisions were correct, and thus, they affirmed the lower court's ruling.