Magistrate

S-2019-479

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case involving Chris Forte and Skyla Forte, who were charged with Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. The order of the District Court, which quashed the child abuse charge due to insufficient evidence, has been reversed by the appellate court. Key points from the document include: 1. The appellate court held that the District Court abused its discretion in determining that the magistrate's bind-over order for Count 1 (Child Abuse by Injury) was not based on competent evidence. 2. The preliminary hearing established that the alleged victim, a six-year-old girl named K.K., suffered extensive bruising and malnourishment which were reported as a result of the conduct of the Appellees. 3. Evidence included testimony from a child abuse pediatrician whose findings indicated that the injuries were consistent with abuse rather than legitimate disciplinary actions. 4. The court stated that the determination of whether the force used was reasonable or excessive is typically a matter for a jury to decide. 5. Ultimately, the matter has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The case illustrates the legal standards for assessing probable cause during preliminary hearings and clarifies the threshold for determining whether the use of physical discipline may cross into abusive conduct under Oklahoma law.

Continue ReadingS-2019-479

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings.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-2016-29

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-29, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Jones for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal because the State did not file the required Petition in Error within the time limit. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2016-29

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

S-2011-0801

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2011-0801, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Wendel Hughes for preventing a witness from giving testimony, use of a firearm while committing a felony, and false reports of crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that dismissed the charges of preventing a witness from testifying and use of a firearm while committing a felony. One judge dissented. Wendel Hughes was charged in Sequoyah County with three serious offenses. During the preliminary hearing, the magistrate determined that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges of preventing a witness from giving testimony or using a firearm during a felony. The State thought this decision was wrong and appealed the ruling. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to see if there is likely enough evidence to believe that a crime happened and that the accused person committed it. The court reviewed the case to check if the lower court made a mistake in its decision. They found that the evidence the State provided was not strong enough to show that Hughes committed the crimes. So, they decided not to change the ruling of the lower court. The court affirmed the dismissal of the two counts against Hughes, meaning they agreed with the previous decision. The judge who disagreed with the majority opinion thought that the evidence should have been enough to go to trial. He argued that the evidence suggested Hughes had intentions to stop the witness from providing testimony and that a jury should decide if he was guilty based on all the facts of the case. In summary, Hughes's charges were dismissed because the courts did not find enough evidence of his wrongdoing based on the information presented during the preliminary hearing.

Continue ReadingS-2011-0801

S-2011-774

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-774, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of DeJear. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the previous ruling, which found there was not enough evidence to prove that DeJear was under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, making the charges not applicable. One judge dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingS-2011-774

J-2011-394

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2011-394, R.J.T. appealed his conviction for multiple counts of arson. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's certification of R.J.T. to the juvenile system for prosecution. One judge dissented. R.J.T., who turned fifteen just days before the alleged offenses, was charged in Cleveland County District Court with several counts of arson. The law allows for individuals like R.J.T. to be considered youthful offenders, meaning they could be treated differently than adults in the legal system. The Youthful Offender Act lets a young person ask to be moved to the juvenile justice system either before or during a preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing on May 4, 2011, R.J.T.'s lawyer had not filed a formal request to have R.J.T. tried as a juvenile. Instead, they agreed that R.J.T. would plead guilty to being a youthful offender, which would lead to a delay in sentencing while he was on probation. However, the judge expressed concern about this agreement, questioning whether he could move R.J.T. to the juvenile system on his own if they waived the preliminary hearing. After some discussion, R.J.T. waived the preliminary hearing. The judge then proceeded to consider if R.J.T. should be certified to the juvenile system, looking into evidence including a psychological report. The judge found that R.J.T. had strong family support, no prior criminal history, and had been doing well in school. It was revealed that he had ADHD and had been removed from medication around the time of the offenses. The judge also heard that R.J.T. was shy and struggled socially but had not caused any injuries in the incidents he was accused of. At the end of the hearing, the judge decided to certify R.J.T. to the juvenile system for prosecution after considering the guidelines established by law. This decision meant that R.J.T. would be treated more like a child than an adult in the legal system. The state then appealed this decision, believing that the judge had made mistakes. On appeal, the state argued two main points. First, they said the judge shouldn't have rejected the waiver of the preliminary hearing since it would mean R.J.T. wouldn’t be able to take the plea deal. Second, they claimed that the judge shouldn’t have certified R.J.T. as a juvenile because he considered factors not allowed by law. However, the court found that the judge acted within his rights to consider the certification issue and that he did so correctly, based on the evidence. The court noted that there was enough information to support the judge's decision. They stated that the goal of the youthful offender system is to ensure public safety while giving young people a chance for rehabilitation. The court's decision reaffirmed that R.J.T. would continue in the juvenile system, allowing for different treatment options than if he were handled as an adult. The decision was approved by most judges, but one judge disagreed, arguing that the judge had overstepped by forming conclusions without sufficient evidence being presented. In conclusion, the May 4, 2011, order certifying R.J.T. to the juvenile system was upheld by the court, which believed that this path offered the best chance for R.J.T.'s rehabilitation and the safety of the community.

Continue ReadingJ-2011-394

S 2011-0024

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2011-0024, Joel Christion Aranda appealed his conviction for multiple charges including Use of a Vehicle in Discharge of a Weapon and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed several counts against Aranda. One judge dissented, believing there was enough evidence to proceed with some of the charges.

Continue ReadingS 2011-0024

S 2011-0023

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2011-0023, David Franco appealed his conviction for several charges related to using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, feloniously pointing a firearm, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that dismissed some of the charges against him. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS 2011-0023

S-2008-953

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-953, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of James Lee Sharrock for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had found that the child's out-of-court statements were inadmissible. The majority of the court agreed, while one member dissented. The case started when Sharrock was charged with two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. At a preliminary hearing, the judge decided that there was not enough evidence to proceed with one of the counts. This was because the statements made by a four-year-old child could not be used, as the child was not present to testify, which made those statements hearsay. The State argued that the judge made a mistake by not allowing the testimony of two adults who had interacted with the child. These adults wanted to share what the child said about their experience. However, the judge explained that according to Oklahoma law, the child must either be available to testify or fit certain criteria for hearsay to be considered valid. The State then appealed this decision, and another judge confirmed the initial ruling. Finally, the case was brought to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which reviewed the arguments and the evidence presented. They concluded that the lower court's decision was correct because the magistrate had the right to determine whether the child was available to testify. In the end, the court upheld the initial decisions made by both lower court judges, stating no mistakes were found in their rulings. The final rulings and orders were affirmed, confirming that the hearsay statements from the child could not be used in the case against Sharrock.

Continue ReadingS-2008-953

S-2008-53

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-53, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions, meaning they upheld the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the trial against the defendant. One judge dissented in this case. The case was about a parent who was accused of child abuse after leaving her two children in a vehicle while she became unconscious. The court looked at whether the parent’s actions met the legal definition of child abuse. A special judge had already decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her, and when the State appealed that decision, the district judge agreed. When the case reached the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the justices reviewed the earlier decisions. They listened to arguments from both sides and looked closely at the facts. They saw that the earlier judges had acted reasonably and hadn’t made any mistakes that would change the outcome. Therefore, they decided to keep the original ruling, which meant that the parent wouldn’t have to face trial for the charges brought against her.

Continue ReadingS-2008-53

S-2005-657

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-657, the State of Oklahoma appealed a ruling related to two individuals who were accused of having marijuana with the intent to distribute, along with drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that excluded certain evidence. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The police received a report that someone smelled marijuana coming from a house. When an officer arrived at the scene, he also smelled the marijuana and entered the home without permission. He searched a few areas and found marijuana and a pipe. The two accused individuals stated that the police officer had no right to enter or search their home. Eventually, a search warrant was issued based on the officer's report of the smell of marijuana. However, during a preliminary hearing, it was decided that the initial search was illegal because the officer did not have permission to enter the house and there were no emergency reasons to justify his actions. The judge in the lower court decided that the evidence collected from the illegal search could not be used to support the search warrant, meaning that the search warrant itself could not stand. Since there was no valid reason to issue the search warrant without the evidence from the initial illegal search, the evidence collected after the warrant was also thrown out. The state argued that the smell of marijuana alone could be enough to justify the search warrant. Still, the judge said that strong evidence was needed and that the warrant was based too much on the illegal findings from the first search. This led the court to agree that the evidence against the accused individuals could not be used, affirming the earlier decision made by the lower court. In short, the court ruled that because the initial search was illegal, it weakened the case against the accused, and thus their evidence should not be included.

Continue ReadingS-2005-657