Illegal Detention

S-2013-127

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-127, Isaac Paul Bell appealed his conviction for Possession of a Weapon on School Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that quashed and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. Isaac Paul Bell was accused of having a weapon on school property, which is against the law in Oklahoma. Bell filed a motion to have the charges dropped, and the judge agreed, deciding that the charges could not stand. The state of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision and appealed, arguing that the police had enough reasons to stop and search Bell. The state presented three reasons why they thought the dismissal was wrong. First, they argued that because there were weapons in plain sight, the police had a good reason to stop Bell. Second, they claimed that Bell agreed to let the police search his car after they asked him about other weapons, and that was okay. Finally, they said the court made a mistake by dismissing the charges when they believed there was enough proof to continue the case. The reviewing court looked carefully at all parts of the situation. They understood that officers must have a good reason to stop someone and that the police had to follow rules when stopping and searching a person. The court found that the officer did not have a strong enough reason to stop Bell. When the officer saw the knives in Bell's truck, there was no reason to think Bell was doing anything wrong because he had not broken any laws, and the knives were properly stored. The court also considered whether Bell's agreement to let police search his truck was valid since he had already been detained wrongly. They decided that Bell's consent was not free and voluntary because it happened immediately after the wrongful detention. Since Bell was handcuffed and questioned by an armed officer without being informed of his rights, the court determined that his consent did not fix the problem caused by the illegal detention. Because of how they resolved the first two points, the third point from the state was no longer important. Therefore, they affirmed the decision to dismiss the case against Bell.

Continue ReadingS-2013-127

F 2003-816

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-816, John Carl Fike appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction for possession of methamphetamine should be reversed and dismissed, but the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana were upheld. One member of the court dissented. John Carl Fike was tried and found guilty by a jury for having cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. He was sentenced to five years in prison for cocaine and methamphetamine, with fines, and six months in jail for marijuana, also with a fine. Fike argued that the roadblock where he was stopped was not legal, that he was held unlawfully, and that evidence against him was not properly handled. He also felt his punishments were too harsh and there were multiple errors during his trial that made it unfair. The court looked at these claims. They determined that the roadblock was done correctly. They said that Fike was not held unlawfully and that the evidence was accepted correctly, so those claims didn't change the outcome. However, they found that Fike could not be punished for both cocaine and methamphetamine under the law, which is called double jeopardy. So, they reversed the conviction for methamphetamine. The other sentences were deemed acceptable by the court, which also said he was treated fairly in regards to his trial. Overall, the court upheld the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana but ended the conviction for methamphetamine. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the stop and search of Fike were not done properly.

Continue ReadingF 2003-816

F 2002-1116

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-1116, Billy Ray Rodgers appealed his conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Billy Ray Rodgers was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine in Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison and a fine of fifty thousand dollars. After the trial, he appealed the decision, raising several reasons why he believed the conviction should be overturned. First, he argued that the evidence did not show he actively participated in making methamphetamine. The law states that for someone to be convicted of a crime, there must be proof that they either committed the crime themselves or helped someone else do it. In this case, the court agreed with Rodgers. They said that simply being present at the scene of the crime was not enough to prove that he was guilty of manufacturing meth. Rodgers' lawyer had argued that the trial judge did not give the jury proper instructions. He also claimed there were mistakes made by the prosecutor and that his own lawyer did not do a good job, which all contributed to an unfair trial. Lastly, he said that the evidence collected against him should not have been used because it was obtained through an illegal search. After reviewing all the evidence and arguments, the court decided that there was not enough proof to support the conviction. They found that being present at the meth lab did not equal participating in its operation. Therefore, they reversed his conviction and ordered that the case be dismissed entirely. The dissenting judge believed there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction. They argued that Rodgers was present where meth was being manufactured, and there were items connecting him to the lab. This judge felt that a reasonable juror could find him guilty based on the evidence, which included his fingerprints on lab equipment and his social security card found there. In summary, the court overruled the conviction because they believed the evidence did not sufficiently prove Rodgers was involved in the crime, while one judge disagreed and thought the evidence was enough for a conviction.

Continue ReadingF 2002-1116