Evidence Suppression Archives

F-2018-542

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-542, Charles Henry Tarver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that relief was required, and the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Charles Henry Tarver, Jr. was tried by a jury and convicted of having illegal drugs with the intent to sell them and for having drug paraphernalia. He was given a long prison sentence and a fine. Tarver appealed this decision because he believed that the evidence used against him was obtained illegally when a police officer stopped him for a minor traffic violation. The events leading to Tarver's arrest happened on May 23, 2016. A deputy police officer stopped Tarver because the light on his truck’s license plate wasn’t working. During this stop, the officer noticed that Tarver was very anxious and had trouble staying still. Instead of quickly giving him a ticket and letting him go, the officer waited for backup and a dog trained to detect drugs. While waiting, the officer searched Tarver's truck, finding illegal drugs. Tarver argued that this search was not allowed under the law because it happened without enough reason to keep him there longer than necessary for the traffic stop. Initially, the judge at Tarver’s trial ruled that the stop was legal, but he did not consider whether the stop went on too long without proper reasons. This was an important mistake because the law says that once the reason for a stop is handled, the police cannot keep someone for longer without having a good reason to think that person is doing something illegal. The appeals court reviewed the case and found that the trial judge had incorrectly placed the burden of proving that the police action was legal on Tarver instead of where it should have been on the state. The appeals court agreed that the stop was carried out longer than necessary, and the police officer did not have enough solid reasons to justify keeping Tarver there longer than the original traffic issue. The court decided to reverse Tarver's convictions and told the district court to dismiss the charges against him because the search that found the drugs was not properly justified. One judge disagreed with this outcome, arguing that the police acted reasonably based on their experiences and knowledge about Tarver. This dissenting opinion held that the evidence might still be good enough to uphold the conviction. In the end, the decision meant that Tarver would not have to serve time for these charges, as the evidence against him was deemed to have been collected improperly.

S-2018-438

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellant,** **v.** **LESLYE SOTO,** **Appellee.** **Case No. S-2018-438** **Filed July 11, 2019** **Opinion by: Lewis, Presiding Judge** --- **OPINION** Leslye Soto was charged with aggravated trafficking in illegal drugs, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2014, § 2-415, in Oklahoma County district court case number CF-2015-5312. The district court, presided over by the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, granted a motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement prior to the trial. The State appeals this decision. ### FACTS On the night of the incident, Leslye Soto was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband, Jorge Soto. The vehicle was stopped by Sergeant Keegan Burris from the Oklahoma City Police Department K-9 unit for making an improper lane change. Following the stop and a brief investigation, Burris observed signs that led him to suspect drug trafficking. These included: - The appearance of the vehicle which suggested a lived-in look. - The nervous demeanor of both the driver and passenger. - A disassembled phone in the vehicle. - Misaligned statements regarding the purpose of their travel. - Clothing that did not appear suitable for a wedding. After issuing a warning citation and asking for additional questions, Jorge Soto initially declined to consent to a vehicle search. Burris then extended the detention based on the signs of possible illegal activity, deploying a K-9 to sniff the vehicle. The K-9 alerted, leading to the discovery of contraband. The trial court concluded that Burris lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop, determining the presented factors were insufficient for such suspicion. The State appeals this ruling. ### ANALYSIS The standard for evaluating the trial court's decision on a motion to suppress is an abuse of discretion. Under established jurisprudence, an extended police stop must either be based on reasonable suspicion or valid consent. In this case, Sergeant Burris provided specific articulable facts informing his suspicion of drug trafficking, relying on his training and expertise. The totality of circumstances, rather than isolated factors, should guide the determination of reasonable suspicion. The trial court's comparison of the Sotos' behavior to its own travel habits was misplaced and underappreciated the officer's expertise. Understanding that reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard than probable cause, the court finds Burris legitimately extended the stop for further investigation. Given the K-9's alert after this reasonable extension, the officer developed probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle. ### DECISION The trial court's ruling suppressing the evidence is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. **Attorneys on Appeal:** - For the State: Kyle Peppler, Clayton Niemeyer - For Defendant/Appellee: Richard W. Anderson, David Autry **Concurrences:** KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- **Click Here To Download PDF** [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-438_1734280785.pdf)

S-2018-164

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:S

This document is an opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in a criminal case involving Don Arneilus Ingram. The opinion details the legal proceedings stemming from Ingram’s arrest and the subsequent suppression of evidence obtained during that arrest. **Key Points of the Case:** 1. **Charges Against Ingram**: Don Arneilus Ingram faced multiple felony charges including trafficking in illegal drugs, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of proceeds from illegal drug activity, with the state alleging that these crimes were committed after previous felony convictions. 2. **Initial Detention and Arrest**: The arresting officer, Sergeant Greg Bell, initially noticed Ingram driving a vehicle with a temporary tag in a high-crime area. After observing suspicious behavior, including Ingram’s inability to identify a friend he claimed to be visiting, Sgt. Bell approached Ingram to ask questions. This led to Sgt. Bell detaining Ingram for driving without a license. 3. **Search Incident to Arrest**: Following the arrest, Sgt. Bell conducted a search of Ingram, which yielded a large amount of cash and identification. After noticing Ingram acting nervously and attempting to direct his female companion to leave, officers subsequently searched the vehicle Ingram had been driving, finding significant quantities of illegal drugs and a firearm. 4. **Motion to Suppress Evidence**: Ingram filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the search was therefore unlawful. 5. **District Court’s Ruling**: The district court granted Ingram's motion to suppress, determining that the initial contact was not lawful and that the subsequent search of the vehicle was unreasonable. 6. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision**: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's order. The court found that Sgt. Bell's initial interaction with Ingram was a consensual encounter and that sufficient probable cause existed for both the arrest and the search of the vehicle. **Conclusion**: The appellate court concluded that the evidence should not have been suppressed, underscoring the importance of analyzing the totality of circumstances leading to an officer’s determination of probable cause. The decision emphasizes that even behavior that seems innocent in isolation can, when viewed in context, lead to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. For a complete review of this case and its legal implications, interested parties can download a PDF of the full opinion.

S-2018-229

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:S

**Summary of Case: State of Oklahoma v. Brittney Jo Wallace, 2019 OK CR 10** **Court**: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma **Case No.**: S-2018-229 **Date Filed**: May 23, 2019 ### Background: Brittney Jo Wallace was charged in the District Court of Rogers County with two counts of Enabling Child Abuse and one count of Child Neglect. A pretrial hearing was held regarding her motion to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone, which was granted by the trial court. ### Key Points: 1. **Appeal by State**: The State of Oklahoma appealed the trial court's decision to suppress evidence obtained from Wallace's cell phone, arguing that the seizure was supported by probable cause. 2. **Legal Standards**: - The appeal is evaluated under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, which allows the State to appeal a pretrial order suppressing evidence in cases involving certain offenses. - The appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a motion to suppress. 3. **Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances**: - The court recognized that warrantless searches are presumed unreasonable but can be justified under certain conditions, such as probable cause and exigent circumstances. - The detective believed that Wallace's phone contained evidence of child abuse and had sufficient reasons to act quickly to preserve that evidence. 4. **Actions Taken with the Phone**: - The detective accessed the phone with Wallace's assistance to forward calls and put the device in airplane mode, actions viewed as reasonable to prevent potential evidence loss. 5. **Trial Court's Findings**: - The trial court suppressed the evidence, stating the seizure and accessing of the phone were illegal. The appellate court found this decision to be an abuse of discretion, as the actions taken by law enforcement were justified. 6. **Search Warrant**: - The State also challenged the trial court's ruling regarding a subsequent search warrant for the cellphone, which the trial court deemed overly broad and not supported by probable cause. - The appellate court highlighted the need for the defendant to provide evidence showing the invalidity of the warrant and noted the lack of factual development in the record. ### Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence. It determined that the initial seizure and accessing of Wallace’s phone were reasonable and consistent with legal standards. The matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The decision was unanimously concurred by all judges. **Document Link**: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-229_1734331323.pdf) --- This summary encapsulates the critical elements of the case, focusing on the legal principles involved and the court's reasoning without delving into detailed citations or procedural minutiae.

F-2016-375

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 25, 2019
Post category:F

This document is the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the appeal of James Stanford Poore from his convictions of four counts of First Degree Murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm, which occurred in Tulsa County District Court. The jury recommended sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder convictions and life imprisonment for the robbery charges. The opinion outlines the factual background of the case, including the brutal murders of four victims during a robbery and the subsequent evidence linking Appellant Poore and his brother Cedric Poore to the crime. Key pieces of evidence included witness testimonies, DNA analysis, and ballistic evidence connecting the Poores to both the murders and an earlier robbery. The appellate court addressed several propositions raised by Poore, reviewing the admission of expert testimony, the exclusion of certain third-party perpetrator evidence, the relevance of other crimes evidence, the legality of the search warrant executed at Poore's mother's residence, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence or denying Poore's requests for different evidence and upheld the sufficiency of the search warrant. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, providing a detailed legal rationale for its decisions. The final decision includes an order for the mandate to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. The judgment for both the defendant and the state was documented, with all judges concurring in the decision. For those interested in viewing or downloading the original document, a link is provided at the end of the summary.

F-2014-698

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 28, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-698, Weimer appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder (Child Abuse). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Weimer was found guilty after a jury trial in Comanche County and was sentenced to life in prison. He also had to pay restitution of $6,395. During his appeal, Weimer claimed several issues. He argued that evidence from the Medical Examiner's office was not valid because the office was not accredited. He also said that he could not present his defense properly and that he could not confront the witnesses effectively. Another issue was his complaints about gruesome photos shown during the trial, saying they made the trial unfair. Weimer's defense team also argued that not letting the jury visit the crime scene was unfair and that the restitution amount was not backed by real evidence. Lastly, he expressed that the total mistakes during the trial made the whole process unfair. The court reviewed each of Weimer's points. They decided that even though the Medical Examiner's office was not accredited, it did not make the evidence inadmissible. They also ruled that Weimer was able to defend himself properly and that he was not unfairly restricted in doing so. The court allowed the autopsy photos because they were relevant to the case. Regarding the jury's visit to the crime scene, the court agreed with the trial judge that it was not necessary. On restitution, the court found the trial judge had not given a clear basis for the restitution amount, which led to the decision to vacate the order and send it back to the lower court for further evaluation of the actual loss. In the end, the court found no errors in the trial that would require a new trial. Therefore, they affirmed Weimer's conviction but sent the case back for more work on the restitution amount because there wasn't enough evidence to support it. One judge disagreed with part of the ruling about the Medical Examiner’s office not being accredited but agreed with the final result of the decision.

S-2013-103

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 2, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-103, Uriel Alajandro Lopez and Maria Magana appealed their conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling which granted a motion to suppress evidence. One judge dissented. Lopez and Magana were charged in McIntosh County after Trooper Koch stopped their vehicle. Before the trial started, they filed to suppress evidence related to the traffic stop and the search of their vehicle. The district court agreed and granted their motions, leading the state to appeal. The state argued two main points for the appeal. First, they believed the trooper had a valid reason to stop the vehicle, claiming that Magana broke traffic laws by following another vehicle too closely and failing to move for an emergency vehicle. However, the court found that the trooper's basis for the stop was questionable because the laws did not support his reasoning. The trooper said Magana was driving less than two seconds behind a truck, which he thought was unsafe. But he was unable to prove that this was a valid reason under the law. The rules of driving were not clear enough to justify his stop. The court noted that the trooper’s idea of a two-second rule was not mentioned in the traffic laws, which made it hard to understand if there was any real violation. The court also looked at a second reason the state provided, which was that the trooper had seen Magana not move to the left lane for an emergency vehicle. However, the trooper didn’t take any action based on this perceived violation when he stopped the car. Since this point wasn't strongly developed during the hearing, the court didn’t consider it either. Second, the state argued that searching the vehicle was legal because of signs of criminal activity and the consent given by both Lopez and Magana. But since the first argument about the stop was not valid, the search did not hold up in court. Therefore, the appeal was denied and the decision to suppress the evidence was upheld. In conclusion, the court agreed with the district court's decision to grant the motion to suppress, stating that the trooper did not have a good reason for the stop. The opinion from the court was not published for public record, but it reinforced the importance of adhering to the rules of evidence and the proper procedures during traffic stops.

F-2012-172

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 24, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-172, Mark Wallace Williams appealed his conviction for attempted burglary in the first degree, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of material with intent to manufacture, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentence for attempted burglary from 14 years to 10 years. One judge dissented. Williams was arrested after being found in a vehicle at the scene of a reported burglary. He argued that his arrest was illegal and the evidence obtained should not have been used against him. The court disagreed, ruling that there was enough probable cause for the arrest. Williams also challenged the searches of his car, particularly the trunk, claiming they were unlawful. The court recognized some issues with the search but determined that the evidence could still be used because the police would have found it during an inventory search of the car. During the trial, Williams made statements to police which he later contested as improperly admitted. The court found any potential error harmless given the other evidence presented against him. Further, Williams argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support his conviction for attempted burglary, but the court found that evidence, including his actions and items found with him, was sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude he was attempting to commit a crime. He also claimed that jury instructions were mistaken about his prior convictions, but the court held that these errors did not harm his case significantly. Williams raised concerns about his competence to stand trial, and the court reviewed multiple evaluations of his mental health history. Ultimately, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that he was competent to stand trial. Additionally, he argued that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he could not have waived his right to counsel due to incompetence. The court found no merit to this assertion, concluding that Williams did indeed understand and make a valid choice to represent himself. Overall, the court affirmed most of Williams' convictions, modified one sentence, denied a request to supplement the record, and found no grounds for a new trial or hearing on these matters.

S-2012-214

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 13, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-214, Nhanh Van Dang and Nhi Thi Nguyen appealed their conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence, meaning the charges against them could not proceed. One judge dissented. The case began when law enforcement stopped the vehicle driving by Dang and Nguyen. They were suspected of breaking traffic laws, but the court found that the officers did not have enough reason to pull them over. The original judge ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the stop, which led to the suppression of the evidence gathered afterward. The state tried to argue that the stop was justified because of alleged traffic violations. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision, saying the evidence did not clearly show that the officers had a good reason to stop the vehicle. Since the stop was deemed improper, the gathered evidence could not be used in court against Dang and Nguyen. Therefore, the appeals court confirmed that the right decision was made by the lower court in suppressing the evidence, reinforcing the idea that fair legal procedures must be followed.

F-2010-548

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2012
Post category:F

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.

S-2011-544

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-544, the State of Oklahoma appealed a court's decision where evidence was suppressed in a criminal case. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling. One member of the court did not agree with this decision. The case began when the district court, under the Special Judge, found that the State had not followed the rules about sharing evidence, known as the Discovery Code. The State argued that it had done nothing wrong and claimed that the court should not have punished them for this. They believed the judge’s decision to tell the jury about the supposed violation was also wrong, especially since they didn't act in bad faith. The court examined the arguments from both sides and concluded that the district court did not make a mistake. They believed that the State really did not follow the rules and agreed that it was appropriate to impose penalties for this. The court also explained that they don't usually review jury instructions in these matters. Ultimately, the higher court decided to keep the ruling from the district court, meaning the previous decision to suppress the evidence remained in effect. The ruling was considered important in the context of the legal process. In the end, the reasoning emphasized that having a fair process helps both sides in a case and that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each other's arguments can make trials go better. Even though some might think the penalties were harsh, the court felt it was essential to make sure that such rules are followed in the future.

S-2009-858

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 10, 2010
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.

S-2009-567

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing certain evidence. One judge dissented. Charles Stephens was arrested after police searched his apartment and found illegal drugs. He asked the court to remove the evidence from the case, saying the police had not followed the law when they obtained it. Initially, a lower court agreed to suppress some of the evidence but allowed some to remain. The State, unhappy with this decision, did not properly challenge the ruling. Later, another judge looked at the case and agreed that since the State did not appeal the initial ruling, they had to follow it. The judge then decided that the evidence not suppressed was also obtained through illegal means and thus had to be removed from consideration in the trial. The State argued against this decision, claiming the suppression ruling was wrong and that the defendant did not have a right to claim ownership of some of the evidence. However, the higher court, after reviewing the case, found that the lower court was correct in its rulings. The final decision was to keep the evidence suppressed, meaning it could not be used against the appellant in court.

S-2008-176

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 9, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-176, the State of Oklahoma appealed its case against a person charged with multiple crimes, including trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The trial court had ruled that some evidence obtained from a locked safe in the motel room during the arrest should be suppressed, meaning it couldn't be used in court. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they believed the trial court made an error by not allowing a detective to share specific statements from a witness who gave permission to search the hotel room. Second, they thought the officers had the right to search the locked safe without needing a warrant. After looking closely at the case and the reasons for the trial court's decisions, the court concluded that the trial judge had done the right thing. It found that the trial court's rulings about hearsay, which refers to using second-hand information as evidence, were not wrong. The judges decided the officers should have obtained a warrant before searching that locked safe. The court affirmed, meaning they agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence from the safe. A judge dissented but the main ruling stood.

RE-2007-323

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-323, Durant appealed his conviction for the unlawful use of photographic equipment for lewd and lascivious purposes. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. To provide a bit more detail: Durant had entered a plea of no contest to a charge of second-degree rape in 2003 but received a suspended sentence. In 2005, he was charged with a new crime, which caused the state to seek to revoke his suspended sentence. After being convicted of the new offense in 2006, his suspended sentence was revoked in 2007. Durant argued that the law used to revoke his sentence was unconstitutional, that evidence against him was gathered illegally, and that there wasn't enough evidence for revocation. Later, in May 2008, the court reversed his conviction for the new crime, suggesting that his actions, though not acceptable, did not fit the legal definition of a crime. Because his suspended sentence was based only on that conviction, the court reversed the decision to revoke it.

F-2005-1146

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1146, Pamela Dee Colley appealed her conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs (methamphetamine) and several other drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her convictions for counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, but reversed her conviction for count 3, possession of marijuana. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of count 3. Pamela Colley was found guilty by a jury for a serious crime related to illegal drugs after a traffic stop conducted by a police officer. The case began when the officer noticed her car making a traffic violation early in the morning. When he pulled her over, he found out that Colley did not have a driver's license and provided some confusing information. The police officer thought that drug dealers were operating in the area, so he called for a K9 unit to further check for drugs. When the dog alerted, the police searched her car and found illegal drugs, scales, and items used for drug use in her purse. Colley was very upset and later gave permission for police to search her, leading to more illegal items being discovered on her. Colley argued in court that her sentence of life without parole was unfair and that she didn’t know about the drugs. She claimed that her attorney didn’t defend her well and that the way the trial was handled had problems. However, the court found that there was enough evidence to support her conviction. They also decided the police did everything by the book during the traffic stop. While the court agreed that one of her charges resulted in a double punishment, it found that her other convictions were valid given the serious nature of the drug trafficking involved. Thus, she will remain convicted on those charges, which involved large amounts of methamphetamine, while they reversed the possession of marijuana charge due to it being a part of the same incident.

F-2003-1266

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 21, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1266, James Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including manufacturing methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. One judge dissented on the sentencing issue. Hudson was found guilty of five charges related to drug manufacturing and possession, among others. He was sentenced to a total of over twenty years in prison, which he appealed, arguing that some of his convictions should not stand, and that he did not receive fair treatment during his trial. The court reviewed his claims one by one. They found that the law allowed him to be convicted for both manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine. The search of his home, which was supposed to be within the law, was ruled proper. It was also concluded that Hudson’s statements to police were made without pressure, which meant they were valid as evidence. When looking at the amount of evidence presented at trial, the court determined there was enough for the jury to find him guilty of all counts. They acknowledged that Hudson’s attorney made a mistake by not asking for a new judge who had shown bias against Hudson in a public statement. However, the court believed this did not affect the jury’s decision regarding guilt. Regarding the issue of whether evidence of other crimes should be admitted, the court decided the evidence was related to the charges against Hudson and was rightfully included in the trial. In conclusion, while Hudson's convictions were upheld, the court changed his sentences to be served at the same time, which means he would spend less time in prison overall. The judges agreed on most points, but one judge had a different opinion about the sentencing.

F 2002-772

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 29, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-772, Joseph Alexander Simrak appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Firearm after a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was arrested. He was found with methamphetamine and a firearm, which he challenged in court, arguing that the arrest was not lawful. The appellant claimed that because his arrest was unlawful, all the evidence found during the arrest should not have been used against him in court. The court agreed with the appellant and found that the information used to justify his arrest was not reliable. Therefore, the evidence from the unlawful arrest should not have been included in the trial. The jury had previously decided that the appellant should go to prison for ten years for each charge, and those sentences were to be served one after the other. However, since the court found the arrest illegal, both convictions were reversed. The remaining issues raised by the appellant were not considered because the ruling on the arrest was significant enough to change the outcome of the case. Ultimately, the court stated that the appellant would not be punished for these convictions due to the way the evidence was obtained.

F 2002-175

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 19, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-175, James Dale Vaughn appealed his conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but modified the sentence for one of the counts. One judge dissented. Vaughn was found guilty of several charges after a police search of his home revealed drugs and a firearm. The police had a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant who claimed Vaughn was selling methamphetamine. During the search, officers discovered methamphetamine in various amounts, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. Vaughn argued that the search warrant was improperly issued because it relied on hearsay from the informant that was not verified. The court found that there was enough information to justify the warrant and allowed the evidence found during the search to be admitted in court. Additionally, Vaughn claimed the trial court should have required the state to reveal the informant's identity. However, the court decided that the informant's identity was not relevant to Vaughn's defense, and so did not need to be disclosed. Finally, Vaughn argued that the jury was not properly instructed on the possible punishment for one of his charges. The court agreed that the instruction was incorrect and reduced the sentence for that particular charge, while upholding the convictions for the other charges. Thus, the overall decision allowed the convictions to stand, but changed the punishment for one count.

F-2001-609

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 14, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-609, John Henry Harris appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. John Henry Harris was found guilty in a trial without a jury. The court sentenced him to fifteen years in prison and a fine of $25,000. However, Harris appealed this decision, arguing that the police had violated his rights during the arrest. The main issue was whether the police were allowed to enter Harris's home without a warrant. The court reviewed the case law related to the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, police need a warrant to enter a person's home, unless there are special circumstances. One of these situations is called hot pursuit, which means the police can follow someone closely if they believe a crime has been committed and the person might escape. In this case, the court found that Harris's arrest did not require a warrant since the police were trying to apprehend him for minor traffic violations and a misdemeanor charge. They ruled that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify entering the home without a warrant. The court also emphasized that the police needed to show that waiting for a warrant would have resulted in the loss of evidence, which they did not prove. As a result, the court stated that the trial court had made a mistake by not agreeing to Harris's request to dismiss the evidence obtained during the illegal entry into his home. Since the evidence was critical for his conviction, the court had no choice but to reverse Harris's guilty verdict and instructed the trial court to dismiss the charges against him. The dissenting opinion believed that the police acted properly. The dissenting judge pointed out that Harris committed multiple traffic violations and tried to escape from the police by running into a house where he did not live. When the police arrived, the homeowners informed them that Harris should be chased. The dissenting judge felt that the police were justified in entering the home to make the arrest and to prevent potential harm to the homeowners. In summary, the court’s decision to reverse Harris’s conviction was based on the belief that his rights were violated through an illegal entry into his home without a warrant.

F 2000-862

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-862, Taress Lamont Owens appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the $11,000 fine. One judge dissented. Taress Lamont Owens was found guilty by a jury in a case related to illegal drug possession. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a fine of $11,000. Taress believed there were several reasons why his conviction should be overturned or the fine changed, so he appealed the decision. First, he argued that the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court because it was obtained in violation of his rights. However, the judges felt that the search was legal because it was done with consent. They confirmed that the evidence was strong enough to convict him based on the facts of the case. Taress also thought that the evidence presented against him was not enough for a conviction. But the judges disagreed, saying there was sufficient proof that he intended to sell the drugs. He mentioned that some evidence was not relevant to the case, but the judges found the officer’s testimony useful to show the intention behind his actions. Taress raised issues about his rights being violated and that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. The judges looked at these claims and stated that there was no proof that he had been poorly represented in court. Finally, while the judges agreed on most points, they all felt that the fine imposed by the jury was too high according to the law. They decided to cancel the fine because the jury's instructions were incorrect regarding whether the fine should be mandatory. In conclusion, the court upheld Taress Lamont Owens' conviction but nullified the excessive fine, allowing him some relief from the financial penalty imposed during the trial.