Motion to Dismiss Archives

F-2017-1029

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

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1029, Timothy Brian Bussell appealed his conviction for Rape in the First Degree - Victim Unconscious. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence against him. One judge dissented. Bussell was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, even though the jury recommended life without parole. The case involved Bussell and a co-defendant, who filmed another co-defendant having sex with an unconscious victim. The jury believed there was enough evidence to show Bussell helped and encouraged the assault. Bussell raised ten arguments in his appeal, claiming errors during his trial. He argued that he did not get proper notice of the charges against him, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that the trial should have separated him from his co-defendant. He also claimed the victim's testimony was not credible, the prosecution made unfair statements, and that his lawyer did not do a good job. The court reviewed the evidence and found it sufficient for a conviction. They determined there were no significant errors that would affect his rights. The court emphasized that someone's testimony alone could support a conviction, especially if it was backed by video evidence. They concluded that Bussell knew the accusations he was facing and did not show that he was prejudiced by any mistakes made during the trial. Ultimately, the court decided that Bussell's claims did not show any grounds for reversing his conviction. His serious involvement in the crime was evident. The sentence was upheld as appropriate based on the crime he committed, emphasizing the importance of the victim's mistreatment.

S-2018-950

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 4, 2019
Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellant,** **V.** **JERRY LEE NILES, JR., Appellee.** **No. S-2018-950** **NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR - 4 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** The State of Oklahoma appeals from an order affirming a ruling that sustained Jerry Lee Niles, Jr.'s demurrer to the evidence and motion to dismiss charges of Manslaughter in the First Degree. This appeal arises from the death of inmate Anthony Dewayne Huff, who died after being restrained for over fifty hours in the Garfield County Jail. **FACTUAL BACKGROUND** On June 8, 2016, Inmate Huff died in the Garfield County Jail while strapped in a restraint chair, prompting charges against Sheriff Niles and three co-defendants for manslaughter in the first degree, based on alleged misdemeanors of cruelty to prisoners and sheriff or jailer neglect. Judge Ryan D. Reddick granted Niles's demurrer, stating the evidence failed to demonstrate probable cause for either misdemeanor or a causal link to Huff's death. **REVIEWING JUDGE'S FINDINGS** Judge Jill C. Weedon, upon reviewing the preliminary hearing transcripts, found that although jail protocols were violated, Sheriff Niles was not personally involved in the events leading to Inmate Huff's death and had policies in place. The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was related to chronic alcoholism, not directly attributable to Niles's actions. **ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE STATE** 1. Whether sufficient evidence was presented to establish probable cause for the underlying misdemeanors. 2. Whether there was sufficient causation between Niles's alleged misdemeanors and Huff's death. 3. Whether there was probable cause for indicting Niles on the charge of Manslaughter in the Second Degree. **COURT ANALYSIS** The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to establish probable cause that a crime was committed and that the defendant likely committed it. The court must view evidence in favor of the state and ascertain if all elements of the crimes are sufficiently met. Here, the evidence did not support a conclusion that Niles engaged in misconduct that led to Huff's death. **DECISION** The repeated affirmations from both Judge Reddick and Judge Weedon regarding the insufficiency of the evidence concerning probable cause indicate no abuse of discretion. Thus, we AFFIRM the ruling of the District Court of Garfield County sustaining the magistrate's decision dismissing the charges. **CONCURRING OPINION BY HUDSON, J.:** While the court did not find criminal liability here, the circumstances surrounding the case are troubling. The death of an inmate, particularly under such inhumane conditions, raises serious moral questions. Although this ruling does not exonerate the sheriff or absolve oversight responsibility, any potential civil liabilities will fall upon taxpayers, which is an unfortunate outcome of this case. **COUNSEL:** For the State: Christopher M. Boring For Appellee: Gary J. James **END OF DOCUMENT**

RE-2016-135

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2016-135, Michael Brian Harrington appealed his conviction for violating probation. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The State had argued that Harrington's new ten-year sentence for a different crime made his revocation appeal unnecessary. However, the court found that his prior sentences could still affect how long he remains in prison, so the appeal matters.

S-2015-672

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 15, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA Case No. S-2015-672, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the State's appeal and deny the petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus. The dissenting opinion was noted by one member of the court. This case involves Jeremy Scott Niederbuhl, who was charged on December 13, 2013, for trying to break into a home. After attending a barbeque at the homeowner's house, Niederbuhl returned hours later and attempted to enter the home through a door and a window. The homeowner, Mr. Scott, fired shots, hitting Niederbuhl, who then went to the hospital and remained there for two weeks. The legal process began in 2013 when the charges were filed. However, Niederbuhl only found out about the charges in late 2014 when he turned himself in for a different issue. His lawyer argued that there were important text messages between Niederbuhl and the homeowner that could help his case, but the State did not provide this evidence, leading to a significant delay in the trial. On July 17, 2015, the trial court dismissed the case, agreeing that Niederbuhl's rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated due to the State’s lack of action and bad faith. The court believed the State did not follow its obligation to turn over evidence, which was a significant factor in its decision to dismiss the case. The State disagreed with the trial court's dismissal and filed a motion to reconsider the ruling. However, the trial court decided it couldn’t consider this motion because the State already filed an appeal. The State then appealed the dismissal, claiming the trial court made errors in its ruling and that the dismissal did not follow legal procedures. However, the court decided that the State’s appeal was not valid since it did not follow specific laws regarding when the State can appeal a dismissal. In addition to the appeal, the State also filed a petition requesting an order based on their belief that the trial court made mistakes in its rulings. However, the appellate court concluded that the State did not meet the requirements to get an extraordinary writ, which is a special type of order. In summary, the appellate court dismissed the State's appeal and told the case to go back to the District Court for further actions. The petition for the extraordinary writ was also denied, indicating that the appellate court found no legal basis for the State’s claims.

S-2016-29

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 21, 2016
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.

S-2013-510

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509 and S-2013-510, two individuals appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them based on their claim of immunity under the Stand Your Ground law. The court found that the appeal by the State of Oklahoma was not authorized to challenge the dismissal order. One judge dissented.

RE-2014-248

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 11, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-248, Harvell appealed his conviction for violating conditions of probation related to drug possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's order that sentenced him to prison. The court concluded that the District Court lost its authority to revoke his suspended sentence when the state asked to dismiss the motion. Judge Smith dissented.

S-2013-695

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 19, 2014
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green appealed his conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against him and his co-defendants, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg. One judge dissented. The case began when Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were charged after they went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, for breaching their bail bond. They entered the home without permission and removed the Joneses, leading to their arrest. However, the court found that since Green, Krushe, and Thornburg were acting as bail bondsmen with the legal authority to arrest, they did not commit the crimes of burglary or kidnapping. The state argued that their actions were unlawful since they entered the home with the intent to kidnap. However, the court determined that the bondsmen acted within their rights, resulting in the dismissal of charges.

S-2013-696

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 19, 2014
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, S-2013-695, S-2013-696, the defendants appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against the defendants. No one dissented. The case began when three bail bondsmen, Fred Green and his two employees, Ronald Krushe and Christopher Thornburg, were charged with kidnapping and burglary after they tried to arrest two people, Billy and Pam Jones, who had skipped out on their bail. They went to a home in Pawnee County where the Joneses were staying and entered without permission. They handcuffed the couple and attempted to take them to jail. However, the defendants argued that they had the legal right to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond with them. The court found that since they were acting within their legal authority when they arrested the couple, they did not commit kidnapping or burglary. The State disagreed, claiming that the defendants had intended to commit a crime. However, the court concluded that the defendants were within their rights and did not abuse their power. Therefore, the charges were dismissed, and the court upheld this dismissal in their ruling.

S-2013-694

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 19, 2014
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-694, Fred A. Green, Ronald Krushe, and Christopher Thornburg appealed their conviction for kidnapping and first-degree burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the charges against them. One judge dissented. The case began when the three men, who were bail bondsmen, went to a home to arrest two individuals, Billy and Pam Jones, who were staying there. They knocked on the door, entered the home, and handcuffed the Joneses to take them into custody. The homeowner, Patrick Wills, and his wife were not happy about this and called the police. While Green and his employees thought they were legally allowed to arrest the Joneses because they had a valid bond, the State of Oklahoma disagreed and charged them with burglary and kidnapping. The trial court disagreed, stating that the bondsmen did have the right to make the arrests. The State argued that the men acted unlawfully because of certain statements made during the incident, but the court found that they were working within their rights as bail bondsmen. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision to dismiss the charges, stating there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in concluding that the bondsmen were acting legally.

S-2013-127

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 8, 2013
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.

S-2012-834

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 26, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-834, the State of Oklahoma appealed an order that granted a motion to dismiss several charges against Jeffrey Porras. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling. One judge dissented. The case involved charges against Porras, who is a physician. He was accused of committing sexual battery and rape against multiple victims while they were receiving medical treatment. The accusations included five counts of sexual battery and one count of second-degree rape, with the incidents alleged to have occurred in different counties over a period of time from 2005 to 2007. The trial court dismissed some of the counts because it felt that the incidents were not part of a single plan or scheme. The law allows for multiple charges to be tried together if they are connected in a way that shows they are part of the same pattern of criminal behavior. However, the court decided that the alleged crimes in Oklahoma County and Cleveland County were separate and did not meet the criteria for joining them in one trial. In making this decision, the court looked at how the offenses occurred over a span of two years and did not significantly overlap in timing or in the way they were committed. This means that the crimes did not depend on each other and were not part of a continuous plan that would justify being tried together. The appellate court agreed with the trial judge's reasoning, stating that there was no clear error in the decision to dismiss those charges. The ruling reaffirmed that the charges from different counties could be handled separately without causing injustice to anyone. The dissenting judge, however, believed that the charges should not have been dismissed since they had common elements and were related to his actions as a doctor. The dissent argued that since all victims were patients and the incidents happened in similar situations, it was appropriate to consider them as part of a greater plan to commit these crimes. In conclusion, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss certain charges against Porras, maintaining that the evidence did not sufficiently show a connection that warranted a single trial for all the charges.

F-2012-437

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 6, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-437, Mark J. Lawler appealed his conviction for rape in the first degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark J. Lawler was found guilty of rape in the first degree by a jury and given a sentence of thirty-five years in prison. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes during his trial. First, Lawler thought he should have been allowed to represent himself instead of having a lawyer. He argued that this was his right under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court agreed with him, stating that he had clearly asked to represent himself at least five days before the trial, which was a reasonable request. The court also found that Lawler understood the risks involved in defending himself without a lawyer. The trial court was wrong to deny his request, so that was a significant error. Second, Lawler argued that he did not get a speedy trial, which is another right he had under the law. Although there were delays in the trial, the court found that they were not entirely Lawler's fault. The reasons for the delays included busy courts and other issues that were not intentional. However, the court also decided that Lawler did not show he was hurt by the delay, so they did not agree with his claim on this point. In summary, the court found that the trial court made a mistake by not allowing Lawler to represent himself. Because of this error, they reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.

S-2012-194

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 30, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-194, Campbell appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the case, meaning Campbell's charges were dropped. No one dissented. Here’s a summary of what happened: James Monroe Campbell was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. Before the trial began, he asked the court to dismiss the case by filing a request called a Motion to Dismiss. During a hearing before the trial, the judge decided that the evidence against Campbell should not be used, and this meant the case was dismissed. The State of Oklahoma, unhappy with this decision, decided to appeal, which means they wanted another court to review what happened. They filed their appeal based on certain laws that say they have the right to challenge the dismissal of cases when it involves important evidence being excluded. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they claimed the judge made a mistake by dismissing Campbell's case because he believed Campbell broke the law by not staying entirely in one lane while driving. Second, they argued the judge was wrong because the police officer had a good reason to stop Campbell’s car in the first place. To decide if the original judge made a mistake, the court looked at whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to pull Campbell over. A reasonable suspicion is a legal term meaning the officer had a good reason to believe a law was possibly being broken. The officer in this case stated that he stopped Campbell because he saw Campbell's car touch the line marking the lane. However, when the judge looked closely at the evidence, including a video of the incident, she thought that Campbell was driving pretty straight and did not see enough evidence to support the claim that he was breaking any laws. The judge also mentioned that the officer’s concerns did not seem strong enough to justify the stop. Therefore, she decided to dismiss the case because there was not enough evidence to support stopping Campbell's car. When reviewing the situation, the appeals court sided with the original judge's decision and agreed that there was no abuse of discretion, meaning they believed she made the correct choice based on the information available. The court also stated that since the issue of Campbell possibly driving under the influence wasn't raised during the earlier hearing, they could not consider that during the appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to suppress evidence and dismissed the charges against Campbell, which was a win for him.

J 2011-0475

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 25, 2011
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2011-0475, the appellant appealed his conviction for rape and lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court denying the appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and remanded the case to be dismissed. One judge dissented.

S-2007-668

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 1, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-668, the defendant appealed his conviction for Second Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that the defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. One judge dissented.

RE-2007-850

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2008
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-850, Barbara Denise Sanders appealed her conviction for grand larceny and false declaration of ownership, as well as three counts of bail jumping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence for the grand larceny charge, but reversed the revocation of her bail jumping sentences, which means those were dismissed. One judge dissented. Barbara Sanders had pleaded guilty to her charges and received several sentences that were mostly suspended, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time if she followed certain rules. However, she did not follow these rules, which included not paying fees, failing to report to her probation officer, and leaving Oklahoma without permission. Because of these issues, the state tried to revoke her suspended sentences. At a hearing, Barbara admitted to the problems but argued the state had not acted quickly enough to bring her back to court for these issues. The judge did not agree with her and decided to revoke her sentences. On appeal, Barbara claimed that the state had not been diligent in prosecuting her case, and she also pointed out mistakes in the court's records. The court agreed that certain parts of her previous sentences had not been revoked properly and decided that the state had acted too late in one of her cases, which resulted in those charges being dismissed. In the end, the court kept the revocation for the grand larceny charge but said the revocation for the bail jumping charges was invalid because the state did not follow the rules in time.

S-2005-840

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 18, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-840, #Ranney appealed his conviction for #driving under the influence and driving with a revoked license. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided to deny Ranney's motion to dismiss the State's appeal. The court remanded the case back to the District Court with instructions to vacate its order that had previously granted Ranney's motions to suppress evidence and quash the charging information. #One judge dissented. The case began when Ranney was accused of hitting a sign in a convenience store parking lot while possibly being drunk. The police officer noticed things like the smell of alcohol and Ranney's slurred speech. Ranney admitted to drinking beer when the officer questioned him. At a preliminary hearing, Ranney tried to get his statements thrown out, but that motion was denied. Later, at a different hearing, Ranney asked again to have his statements and the charges dismissed. He argued he wasn't free to go when the officer spoke to him and that his statements were made because he felt pressured. He also claimed the officer didn’t have a good reason to come up and question him. The judge, after considering the situation, decided to grant Ranney’s request without explaining why. This left everyone confused about the reasons behind the decision. The State then asked the judge for a written explanation, but she didn’t respond. The State decided to appeal her decision, but Ranney argued that the appeal should be dismissed because there were no clear reasons from the judge about her ruling. While the court agreed there was a problem with the record, they didn’t think the State should be punished because it was mainly the judge’s fault for not providing explanations. So, the court ordered the case to go back to the lower court. They said the District Court should take away its previous decision and then handle Ranney's motions again, this time making sure to provide clear reasons for any new decisions.

F-2000-948

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. PR-99-1326, the Petitioners appealed their conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the mistrial declared by the judge was not justified and therefore double jeopardy bars the State from retrying the Petitioners. One judge dissented. The case began when the Petitioners were charged with serious offenses. The first trial ended in a mistrial, which the judge declared after issues arose during a witness's cross-examination. The attorneys raised concerns about whether the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that could help the defense. This evidence related to the witness's background and credibility. The judge felt that the defense attorney’s questions may have harmed the trial, which led him to call for a mistrial. However, after reviewing the trial's events, the court found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial. In other words, the situation did not require such an extreme remedy. The court felt that a warning could have been sufficient to address any perceived problems before resorting to declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the review concluded that the judge made errors in declaring the mistrial and, as a result, the defendants could not be tried again for these charges. The opinion emphasized that once a jury is discharged without sufficient reason, it can lead to violating the defendants' rights under the double jeopardy clause, which prevents someone from being tried for the same crime twice.