Factual Findings

S-2015-771

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings.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

Continue ReadingS-2015-771

S-2015-446

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingS-2015-446

S-2013-322

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-322, Ridge appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order that suppressed evidence obtained during the investigative detention. One judge dissented. The case began when a police detective observed what he thought was a drug deal involving Ridge. He saw Ridge in his car and another vehicle pull up next to him. Ridge got into the other car briefly, then returned to his own. Suspecting a drug transaction, the detective blocked Ridge's car and approached it. When he smelled marijuana, he questioned Ridge, who initially claimed the other person was just delivering puppy papers. Eventually, Ridge admitted there was marijuana under his seat. Ridge filed a motion to suppress the evidence from this encounter because he argued that the police did not have a good enough reason to stop him. Initially, a different judge denied Ridge's motion. However, after Ridge requested a reconsideration, the case was transferred to another judge, who granted the motion to suppress. The main issues on appeal were whether the new judge should have been able to review the case and whether the detective had enough reason to stop Ridge. The court ruled that the new judge was allowed to reconsider the motion. They stated that earlier rulings on suppression motions were not final and could be evaluated again. Regarding the stop, the court found that the detective did not have sufficient reason to detain Ridge. They stated that just observing Ridge getting in and out of a car was not enough to suspect him of criminal activity. Overall, the court agreed with the district court’s decision to suppress the evidence, meaning it could not be used in court against Ridge.

Continue ReadingS-2013-322

S-2012-554

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Frank Lee Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that suppressed the evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Sheila Carol Johnson. Johnson also appealed her conviction in a related case, S-2012-554. The court found that the law enforcement officers did not execute the search warrant in a timely manner as required, which led to the suppression of the evidence. The judge's determination was based on the conclusion that the search was not conducted immediately as directed by the issuing judge, and therefore, the court upheld the lower court's decision, sustaining the motions to suppress. No dissenting opinion was filed.

Continue ReadingS-2012-554

S-2012-553

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug possession and distribution. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that evidence obtained during a search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Johnson should be suppressed. Johnson dissented. The case started when police met with an informant who said they could buy methamphetamine from Armstrong. The police observed a controlled purchase of drugs and later obtained a search warrant for Armstrong's home. They executed this search warrant a few days later and found Armstrong and Johnson in a car outside his residence, where they discovered several drug-related items. Both Armstrong and Johnson hired the same lawyer and filed motions to suppress the evidence from the car search. The district court agreed with their argument that the police had not executed the search warrant immediately, as the warrant required. Because of this, the court decided the search was not valid. The appeals court looked into whether the district court had made a mistake. They decided that the court did not abuse its discretion and confirmed the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence. This means that the evidence collected during the search could not be used against them in court. The court emphasized that the terms of the warrant were not followed as required. The ruling highlighted the importance of following legal procedures when executing search warrants. In summary, Armstrong's appeal was not successful, and the ruling to suppress the evidence was upheld.

Continue ReadingS-2012-553

S-2012-573

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-573, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the orders of the lower court. The dissenting opinion was not specified. In this case, the appellant was charged after being arrested by a trooper from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. A preliminary hearing took place, and the judge decided there was not enough evidence to proceed with a trial. The state disagreed and appealed this decision. Another judge upheld the first decision, leading to the current appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issue in the appeal focused on whether the highway patrol trooper had the authority to arrest the appellant. After careful consideration and a hearing, the court found no error in how the lower courts handled the case. They determined that the facts and legal interpretations were correct, and therefore, the original decision was upheld. The case was reviewed under specific procedures that allow this kind of state appeal, and the court confirmed that there was no abuse of discretion in the previous rulings. As a result, the final rulings and orders from the lower courts were affirmed, and the court ordered that their decision be enforced.

Continue ReadingS-2012-573

F-2006-348

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-348, Charles Terrell appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modified his sentence from twenty years to ten years. One judge dissented. Charles Terrell was found guilty by a jury for molesting a young girl. The jury decided he should spend twenty years in prison. During the trial, evidence about other crimes was brought up, which included testimony from Terrell's former step-daughter who said Terrell had abused her too. Terrell argued that this testimony was unfair and should not have been allowed, as it could make the jury think he was guilty of more than just the crime he was accused of in this case. The court agreed that mentioning the other crimes was not handled well, as it wasn't properly limited. However, they also believed the main evidence from the victim in this case was strong and enough to show he was guilty. They found that allowing the other testimony did not change the fact that Terrell was guilty, so his conviction stood. On the topic of his sentence, the court thought about how the other crimes evidence might have led the jury to give him a much longer sentence than they would have otherwise. Because of this, they decided to reduce his sentence to ten years instead of twenty. The court concluded that the main evidence was solid, but the details about his past accusations were overly prejudicial and affected the severity of his punishment. The judge also noted that a photograph of the victim was properly allowed into evidence and was not seen as too harmful. In the end, while the conviction remained, the court decided to lessen the time Terrell would spend in prison, trimming it down to ten years.

Continue ReadingF-2006-348

S-2005-890

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-890, Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno appealed their conviction for drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case against both defendants. One judge dissented. Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno were charged with several crimes, including trafficking illegal drugs and other drug-related offenses. On September 1, 2005, the District Court decided to dismiss the charges after finding that the traffic stop that led to the arrests was illegal. This decision went through different hearings, with judges initially disagreeing before ultimately siding with the defendants. The main reason for upholding the dismissal was that the officer lacked sufficient evidence to justify the traffic stop. The court reviewed whether the District Court had made any mistakes in handling the case. They concluded that the court had acted correctly by recognizing that there was no valid reason to stop the vehicle. In summary, the court supported the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case against Short and Ortuno because the initial traffic stop was not lawful. This meant that evidence gathered during that stop could not be used against them. One judge disagreed with this outcome, believing that the case should have been handled differently.

Continue ReadingS-2005-890