Intent to Distribute

S-2022-41

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2022-41, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Joshua Kyle Rhynard for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the appeal was improperly brought and dismissed it. One judge dissented, arguing that the State made a sufficient case for review based on the importance of the evidence that had been suppressed. The dissenting opinion believed that the trial court made an error in suppressing the evidence found during a search because the officers executing the warrant used reasonable belief about the address they were searching.

Continue ReadingS-2022-41

F-2019-82

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-82, Spencer Thomas Cato appealed his conviction for various crimes including possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed and dismissed one count against Cato. A judge dissented regarding the dismissal of that count. Cato had been found guilty of several offenses, including having a controlled substance and firearms while being a convicted felon. During the trial, the jury sentenced him to a total of several years in prison along with fines. The judge decided some of these sentences would be served at the same time, while others would be served one after the other. Cato appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he was punished twice for what he saw as the same action. Specifically, he felt the charges of possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing a firearm while committing a felony were not separate. Cato believed that the law should prevent him from being punished for both crimes since they stemmed from the same act of possessing the same gun with no significant break in time between the two actions. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed with Cato’s argument. They found that there was no new evidence that suggested he had used the firearm for a different purpose at different times. The trial revealed that Cato had the gun and drugs at the same time which led to the conclusion that punishing him for both counts was not appropriate. The court decided to reverse the lesser charge and direct that it be dismissed. In summary, while some of Cato's convictions and their sentences were confirmed, the court found that he could not be punished for both possessing a firearm after a felony and possessing it while committing another felony under the circumstances of his case. Hence, they instructed the lower court to dismiss the one charge.

Continue ReadingF-2019-82

F-2018-1137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Parron Lavon Burrus. Burrus was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, after being found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Caddo County. The court sentenced him to 30 years in prison for the first count and 25 years for the second, running consecutively. In the appeal, Burrus contended that the sentences were excessive and should be modified. He argued that the offenses were interconnected and that the trial court exhibited prejudice against him during sentencing, referencing the requirement for his testimony to be under oath and the judge's prior role in prosecuting him. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence. The court noted that the sentences fell within the statutory range, that there is no constitutional right to concurrent sentences, and that Burrus did not demonstrate that the trial judge's actions or previous involvement in prior prosecutions caused an unfair sentencing outcome. The court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in sentencing, emphasizing the separate nature of the offenses committed by Burrus. In essence, the appeal was denied, and the court's decision was upheld, confirming the sentences imposed on Burrus.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1137

F-2018-542

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF-2018-542

F 2018-0812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, the case of Cesar Jurado is summarized as follows: **Background:** Cesar Jurado pled guilty in multiple cases in December 2015, including felonies for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute, among other charges. After completing a Delayed Sentencing Program for Youthful Offenders, his sentences were deferred until June 14, 2026. **Acceleration of Sentences:** In January 2018, the State sought to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences, claiming he committed new crimes, including Murder in the First Degree and Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Following a hearing in July 2018, Jurado's deferred sentences were accelerated, resulting in life imprisonment on several counts, which were to run concurrently. **Appeal:** Jurado appealed the trial court's decision to accelerate his sentences, arguing that it was an abuse of discretion based on the uncorroborated testimony of an unreliable witness, who did not provide in-person testimony. **Court's Decision:** The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the lower court, finding no abuse of discretion in allowing the State to introduce the transcript of a preliminary hearing as evidence. The court noted that the Appellant's counsel had the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses during the preliminary hearing. The standard of proof for violations of deferred sentences is a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court has discretion in such matters. **Conclusion:** The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the acceleration of Jurado's deferred sentences, concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion based on the evidence presented. **Mandate:** The mandate for this decision is to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. **Opinion by:** Judge Hudson, with Judges Lewis and Kuehn concurring, and Judge Rowland recused. For more detailed information, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-610_1735310684.pdf).

Continue ReadingF 2018-0812

F 2018-0812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2018-0812, Cesar Jurado appealed his conviction for various drug-related offenses and weapon possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences; he had previously entered guilty pleas to several felony charges. The State had applied to accelerate his deferred sentences based on new serious crimes he was alleged to have committed. Jurado argued that the evidence used to support this decision was based on unreliable testimony from a witness who did not appear in person. He claimed this was an abuse of discretion. The court found that the trial court acted within its rights and that there was enough evidence to support the acceleration of Jurado's sentences. It concluded that Jurado did not prove that there was any improper action taken by the trial court. Therefore, his appeal was denied, and the acceleration of his sentences was upheld. One justice dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingF 2018-0812

S-2018-1026

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellant,** **V.** **NICHOLAS LOWELL TURNER,** **Appellee.** **Case No. S-2018-1026** **FILED** **IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** On April 4, 2018, Nicholas Lowell Turner was charged in Tulsa County with multiple drug offenses and related charges. After a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant, the lower court initially denied the motion based on a good faith exception, but later reversed that decision, leading the State to appeal. The key issues before the Court were whether the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the search warrant lacked probable cause and, if so, whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. **Background:** The case arose from evidence gained during the execution of a search warrant on Turner's residence, which led to the seizure of illegal drugs, firearms, and cash. The warrant was issued based on statements from an informant who had been arrested in possession of illegal drugs and had identified Turner as his supplier. Despite the affidavit's deficiencies in detailing direct observations of illegal activity at Turner's residence, the appellate court found there was a sufficient connection established between the residence and Turner's alleged criminal activity. Importantly, the court noted that the officers acted reasonably based on the magistrate's determination of probable cause, allowing for the good faith exception to apply. **Decision:** The Court found that the trial court had erred in not applying the good faith exception properly, stating that a properly issued search warrant, despite some lack of detail in the affidavit, should not have resulted in suppressed evidence. The appellate court ruled to reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case for further proceedings. **Concurring Opinion:** LEWIS, P.J., specially concurs, acknowledging the weaknesses in the affidavit but ultimately agreeing with the application of the good faith exception as the officers acted reasonably in executing the search warrant. --- For full details refer to the decision [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-1026_1734276181.pdf).

Continue ReadingS-2018-1026

M-2018-335

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**

Continue ReadingM-2018-335

F-2018-547

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Summary Opinion: Carlos Antonio King v. State of Oklahoma** **Case No.:** F-2018-547 **Filed:** May 30, 2019 **Judges:** LUMPKIN, P.J., LEWIS, P.J., KUEHN, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., ROWLAND, J. **Facts of the Case:** Carlos Antonio King was convicted by a jury for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine and Marijuana) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm After a Prior Felony Conviction in the District Court of Choctaw County. The jury sentenced him to 20 years each for the drug counts (concurrent) and 1 year in jail for the firearm count (consecutive). **Propositions of Error:** 1. Admission of other crimes evidence violated King's right to a fair trial. 2. Admission of evidence related to an alleged December 2015 buy and an existing arrest warrant violated his fair trial rights. 3. Evidence from an April 15 vehicle search should have been suppressed due to a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. 4. Prosecutorial misconduct due to the premature publication of unadmitted photographs. 5. Cumulative errors denied him a fair trial. 6. Insufficient evidence to convict him for Possession with Intent to Distribute. **Court's Analysis and Decision:** 1. **Proposition One:** The court upheld the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of other crimes, determining it was relevant to prove knowledge and intent, affirming that it did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect. 2. **Proposition Two:** King’s argument regarding the December 2015 buy and arrest warrant was found forfeited due to lack of supporting argument or authority, hence denied. 3. **Proposition Three:** The court found that the search warrant adequately described the areas to be searched. The vehicle, parked on the premises described in the warrant, did not require an additional search warrant. No plain error was identified. 4. **Proposition Four:** While it was noted that the prosecutor used photographs in opening statements that hadn’t yet been admitted into evidence, this was not found to affect King's substantial rights, especially since the photographs were ultimately admitted without objection. 5. **Proposition Five:** The court denied the cumulative error claim, stating that no errors were identified during the trial. 6. **Proposition Six:** The court used the Jackson v. Virginia standard for evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, affirming that sufficient evidence existed that could lead a rational jury to conclude King's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. **Conclusion:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the District Court, finding no reversible errors in the trial proceedings. **Opinion by:** LUMPKIN, P.J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-547_1735318084.pdf)

Continue ReadingF-2018-547

F-2017-1011

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1011, Johnny Ray Hopes appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute and two counts of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Johnny Ray Hopes was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs and for attacking police officers. The jury decided he should go to prison for four years for the drug crime and for thirteen months in jail with a $500 fine for each of the two assaults. The judge ordered that all of these punishments would happen one after the other, not at the same time. Hopes had a few reasons for his appeal. First, he said that the trial court did not properly explain what it meant to represent himself in court. He believed that because he was not fully informed, his choice to represent himself was not made knowingly or voluntarily. The court looked at the facts and found that Hopes was well informed about what it meant to represent himself. They agreed that he made a clear decision and understood the risks involved in not having a lawyer. Therefore, the court decided that he had made a valid choice to represent himself. Second, Hopes claimed that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to hear about a lesser crime called Resisting Arrest. The court explained that for a jury to receive instructions about a lesser crime, there must be enough evidence for a reasonable jury to be able to find the person guilty of that lesser crime instead of the more serious crime they were charged with. The court found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support a charge of Resisting Arrest because Hopes had attacked the officers rather than just resisting their attempts to arrest him. So, they decided the trial court did not make a mistake by not including that lesser charge. Lastly, Hopes argued that the trial court shouldn’t have made his punishments run consecutively. The court explained that there is no rule saying he must receive concurrent sentences, meaning they cannot run at the same time. They confirmed that the judge had the right to decide that Hopes should serve his time one after the other. The court found that there was no evidence showing that the judge didn't consider all the facts when making that decision. In conclusion, the court upheld Hopes’ convictions and punishments. The appeal did not change the earlier decision. One judge disagreed, believing there were reasons to reconsider the case.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1011

F-2018-104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

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

Continue ReadingF-2018-104

C-2018-441

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-441, Clinton Lee Myers appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute near a school. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Clinton Lee Myers entered a plea of guilty to two serious charges. He was sentenced to a long time in prison and had to pay a large fine. After he was sentenced, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court said no after listening to evidence in a hearing. Myers complained that his punishment was too harsh and that the prosecutor shouldn't have talked about his past crimes during the sentencing. He felt this information was unfair and should not have been used against him. However, the court explained that this type of information can be considered at sentencing. They also decided that his sentence was within legal limits and did not shock their conscience, so they would not change it. Additionally, Myers believed that there was a mistake in the written records of his sentence regarding the amount of the fine. The court found that there was, in fact, a clerical error in the documents about the fine amount. They agreed that the error should be corrected to match what the judge said during the sentencing. In conclusion, the court denied Myers' request to change his sentence, but they agreed to correct the written record to reflect the right fine amount.

Continue ReadingC-2018-441

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

F-2016-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DERRECK RYAN GRAY,** Appellant, Case No. F-2016-1015 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Derreck Ryan Gray was convicted by jury of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) With Intent to Distribute (Count I) and Obstructing an Officer (Count II) in the District Court of Payne County. The jury recommended a sentence of twenty-four years for Count I and one year in jail with a $500 fine for Count II. The trial court sentenced Appellant according to the jury's recommendations, though it reduced the fine in Count II to $100. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant appeals, raising one proposition of error: 1. The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during what he contends was an illegal seizure. After reviewing the details of the case and the arguments presented, we conclude that no relief is warranted. During the traffic stop for a violation, neither the driver nor Appellant had valid driver's licenses. Consequently, the vehicle was to be impounded. Upon concluding the traffic stop, Appellant was free to leave, but officers instructed him to exit the vehicle to inventory it. As he did, Officer Cluck observed a plastic bag drop to the floor. When instructed not to touch it, Appellant ignored this and attempted to flee with the bag. Officer Cluck arrested Appellant for Obstructing an Officer, which permitted retrieval of the bag. Subsequent analysis of the bag revealed it contained methamphetamine. Appellant asserts that the seizure of the bag was improper; however, he does not dispute the legality of the traffic stop or the imminent impoundment. His attempt to flee with the bag constituted obstruction, providing probable cause for his arrest. This established legal basis nullifies his argument against the seizure of the evidence. In reviewing the trial court's actions regarding the suppression motion, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court's denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed, as Appellant's conduct provided justification for his detention and the subsequent evidence seizure, which does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** Royce Hobbs, Stillwater, OK, Counsel for Defendant **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** Robert W. Jackson, Norman, OK, Counsel for Appellant Laura Austin Thomas, Payne County District Attorney **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, P.J. **Concur:** LEWIS, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; KUEHN, J.; ROWLAND, J.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1015

S-2015-972

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-972, Marco Callejas appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after juvenile adjudication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to grant Callejas' motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. One judge dissented. Marco Callejas was charged with two crimes in Tulsa County. The charges included unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and having a firearm after being a juvenile delinquent. During his preliminary hearing, the official decided that the stop made by the officer was valid but dismissed one of the charges while moving forward with the other. Before the actual trial began, Callejas argued that there wasn't enough evidence against him and that the evidence collected during the stop should not be used. The judge agreed and dismissed both charges, so the State decided to appeal the judge's decision. The State argued that the judge made errors during the hearing, especially in determining that there wasn't a valid reason for the traffic stop. They explained that the officer interpreted a local traffic law to mean that drivers must hesitate before changing lanes. However, the judge decided that this interpretation of the law was incorrect and that Callejas did not break any laws because he signaled before changing lanes safely. The appeals court looked closely at the traffic law in question and agreed with the judge that the law did not say drivers had to pause before changing lanes. The court pointed out that the officer could see Callejas signaled before making the lane change and that no other traffic was affected by his action. Therefore, there was no valid reason for the officer to stop Callejas. The State also tried to argue that a past decision, involving another case, should apply here, but the court concluded that the current law was clear and did not have the same ambiguities as the previous case. Ultimately, the appeals court confirmed that the traffic stop was based on a misunderstanding of the law. The court affirmed the original decision to suppress the evidence gathered from the stop and to dismiss all charges against Callejas. This means that Callejas did not face criminal charges due to the invalidity of the stop. In summary, the court found that the trial judge made the right call in dismissing the case because the police officer did not have a good reason to stop Callejas.

Continue ReadingS-2015-972

RE-2014-1030

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-1030, Ronnie Eugene Woods appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug with Intent to Distribute, Falsely Personate Another to Create Liability, and Driving with License Cancelled, Suspended, or Revoked. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the order of the District Court regarding Woods' sentences, ensuring that they would be served concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-1030

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

RE-2014-238

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-238, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance within the presence of a minor child, driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and failure to carry an insurance verification form. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2014-238

S-2014-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-786, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Douglas Raymond Norwood for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the felony charge that the State had brought against him. The court also accepted Norwood's guilty plea for the misdemeanor charge. One judge dissented. The case began when the State charged Norwood with felony possession of marijuana because he had three prior convictions related to drug offenses. Norwood argued that because his past convictions were not from the specific law under which the State was trying to charge him this time, his current charge should be treated as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The trial court agreed with Norwood and dismissed the felony charge, allowing him to plead guilty to the lesser charge. The State then appealed, but the court explained that its ability to appeal was limited by law. They could only do so in specific situations, one of which is if there has been a dismissal that prevents further prosecution. The court indicated that the trial court had correctly dismissed the felony charge because the law only allows such enhancements to felony charges when a person has previous convictions specifically under that law. The court referred to a similar earlier case, showing that they had already decided against the State in a comparable situation. They reaffirmed that in order to enhance a charge to a felony, the previous convictions must originate from the same specific law, which was not the case for Norwood. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the lower court to dismiss the felony charge and accepted Norwood's guilty plea for misdemeanor possession. Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the original ruling was confirmed, with one judge explaining why he disagreed with the outcome.

Continue ReadingS-2014-786

S-2013-718

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-718, Tutson and Heartfield appealed their conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) With the Intent to Distribute and other related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence, which means they agreed that the evidence should not be used against Tutson and Heartfield because the consent to search was not clearly given. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-718

RE-2011-606

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-606, Douglas Raymond Norwood appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug (cocaine) with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking Norwood's suspended sentences but vacated the portion of the order that unlawfully lengthened his sentences. One judge dissented. Here's a simple summary of what happened in the case: Norwood was given a six-year sentence for possessing cocaine, but this was suspended, meaning he didn’t have to go to jail right away if he followed certain rules. Later, he had problems following those rules, which led to more charges against him for drug possession. He confessed to these new charges and took a plea deal, which resulted in longer sentences. After some time, a judge reviewed his case and decided to reduce his sentences but required him to go to a program called Avalon after he got out of jail. Norwood didn’t manage to get into Avalon because he couldn't pay the admission fees, which led the judge to completely revoke his suspended sentences. Norwood argued in court that the judge shouldn’t have done that because he had followed some of the rules, and he claimed he didn't intend to break those rules. However, the court found that he didn’t follow the requirement to report to Avalon properly. In the final decision, the court agreed with Norwood about a mistake in how his sentence was handled, stating that the judge had taken away more time than he should have. But overall, the court decided that Norwood had violated his probation, so he had to serve his time in jail as determined by the judge.

Continue ReadingRE-2011-606

RE-2010-762

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-762, Mason appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Mason's suspended sentence but ordered a correction regarding the time served. One judge dissented. Mason had previously entered a guilty plea for a drug-related charge and received a suspended sentence, which meant he didn’t have to go to prison immediately but had to follow certain rules. Over time, he violated those rules several times. The state government, which is responsible for enforcing the law, filed multiple applications to revoke his suspended sentence due to his failures to comply with the terms of probation. He confessed to some of the allegations against him, such as not completing community service and not paying fees. After multiple chances and extensions given by the court to fix his issues, Mason still did not follow the rules. For example, he used drugs again and didn’t seek help as he was supposed to. At a hearing, the court found that Mason did not meet the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his suspended sentence completely. Mason argued that the court shouldn’t have been able to take away the whole suspended sentence because he had already served some time. The court agreed that Mason needed to be credited for time served but found it was appropriate to revoke the rest of the suspended sentence given that he didn’t comply when given chances. The final decision was to affirm the judgment that Mason had violated probation, but with instructions to the lower court to ensure they correctly noted how much time was left on his sentence. In conclusion, while Mason's appeal did not succeed in changing the outcome of the revocation, he was recognized for the days he had already spent in custody.

Continue ReadingRE-2010-762

F-2010-558

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-558, Torrez Ceasar appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (PCP) with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and modify it to Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (PCP) alone, with a sentence of imprisonment for twenty years. One judge dissented. The case began when Ceasar was tried by a jury and found guilty of possessing PCP with the intent to distribute it. The trial took place in the District Court of Oklahoma County, where the judge sentenced him to a long prison term of twenty-five years. Ceasar challenged his conviction on several points. First, Ceasar argued that the evidence did not prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He claimed the state failed to show that he actually possessed the PCP or that he intended to distribute it. The court examined whether a reasonable person could have found him guilty based on the evidence presented. They found enough evidence to support that he had thrown a bottle of PCP into a car, suggesting he had possession of it. However, the question of whether he intended to distribute it was more complex. The law stated that merely having a drug is not enough to show intent to distribute. The court compared Ceasar's situation with another case where the defendants had a large amount of marijuana but were not selling it. The court noted that without proof of other selling signs, such as packaging for sale or cash, it was not clear if Ceasar intended to distribute the drugs. The evidence related to Ceasar's intoxication seemed more consistent with personal use rather than distribution, leading to the decision to change his conviction to simple possession of PCP. Ceasar also raised concerns about the admission of evidence related to his alleged gang affiliation. The court concluded that while this type of evidence can be seen as unfairly prejudicial, in this case, it did not significantly impact the trial outcome. The reference to gang signs was deemed minor and not overly emphasized during the trial, so the decision to allow it was considered fair. Lastly, Ceasar argued that the trial judge erred by not allowing his jury to consider a lesser charge of public intoxication. However, the court determined that public intoxication was not a lesser included offense of drug possession with intent to distribute. The laws concerning these charges protected different public interests, so the judge was correct in denying this instruction to the jury. In summary, after reviewing all arguments and the evidence, the court found that Ceasar's original conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute was not supported by sufficient evidence of intent to distribute. Therefore, his conviction was changed to simply possessing the substance, and the sentence was adjusted to twenty years in prison. The dissenting opinion raised concerns about the majority interpretation of intent and evidence but ultimately, the revised conviction stood.

Continue ReadingF-2010-558

F-2009-749

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-749, Waymond George Morrison appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) with Intent to Distribute, Driving a Motor Vehicle Without a License, Distribution of CDS, and Possession of Proceeds from drug-related activities. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for three counts while reversing one count related to possession of proceeds, ordering that it be dismissed. One justice dissented. Morrison faced several serious charges related to drugs and was sentenced to a total of 100 years in prison for the most severe charges, along with some fines. During his trial, he argued that his rights to due process were violated, that there was an improper handling of testimony, and that he faced double punishment for his actions. The court evaluated his claims: 1. The first issue was whether Morrison’s rights were violated when the court didn’t allow certain testimony. The court decided that the excluded testimony wasn't relevant to the case, so his rights were not infringed upon. 2. The second concern was about the trial being split into two parts (bifurcated). The court ruled that this was a correct decision and that it did not abuse its discretion. 3. Morrison also contended that testimony from a rebuttal witness should not have been permitted. The court found that this was appropriate because the rebuttal witness provided necessary clarifications to previous testimonies. 4. Regarding the issue of double punishment, the court explained that Morrison’s possession and distribution charges were based on separate actions—one for having cocaine and one for selling it. However, his conviction for possession of proceeds was tied to the same act of selling cocaine, so that particular conviction was reversed. 5. The sufficiency of the evidence against him was also questioned. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to reasonably convict Morrison of intent to distribute due to the drugs found in his car shortly after a sale. 6. Lastly, Morrison felt his sentence was excessively harsh. The court did not agree, noting that due to his previous criminal record, the sentence was justifiable. In conclusion, the court upheld the majority of Morrison's convictions and sentences, significantly addressing various legal arguments made by him during the appeal process.

Continue ReadingF-2009-749

F-2009-774

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-774, John Calvin Winrow, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug With Intent to Distribute (Cocaine) and Possession of Controlled Substance (Marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Winrow's convictions but remand the case to the district court for a ruling on whether his sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. One judge dissented regarding the remand for sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2009-774