Motion to Quash Archives

S-2020-79

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 20, 2020
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2020-79, Stricker appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Desecration of a Human Corpse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court that dismissed the alternative charge of First Degree Felony Murder during the commission of a kidnapping. None dissented. On April 17, 2019, Stricker was charged with serious crimes including First Degree Murder in Kingfisher County. Later, he faced an amended charge stating he could be guilty of First Degree Premediated Murder or First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping. During a hearing, the judge decided to dismiss the kidnapping charge based on insufficient evidence, which led the State to appeal the decision. The State argued that the judge’s decision was incorrect because they believed there was enough evidence to show that a crime occurred and that Stricker was involved. They said that at a preliminary hearing, it's essential to prove that probably a crime was committed and that the person involved might have done it. The judge ruled that although Stricker was in a position to manage his victim, there wasn't enough proof to suggest he intended to kidnap her. The second argument from the State was about the timing of Stricker's motion to quash the charges. They claimed the judge should not have considered this motion because it was filed after he pleaded not guilty. However, the court found that the judge did have the authority to hear the motion, even though the prosecution thought otherwise. Ultimately, the court found no error in the District Court's decision to dismiss the charge of First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping and decided to uphold that dismissal.

F-2018-929

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2019
Post category:F

**Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma** **Case:** Andrew Joseph Revilla v. The State of Oklahoma **Citation:** 2019 OK CR 30 **Date Filed:** December 19, 2019 **Docket Number:** F-2018-929 **Summary Opinion** **Judges:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge; Lewis, P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. --- **Overview:** Andrew Joseph Revilla was convicted in Jackson County District Court on two counts of Lewd Molestation of a Minor and one count of Forcible Sodomy, receiving concurrent twenty-year sentences. He raised five propositions of error in his appeal, which the Court addressed. --- ### Propositions of Error **Proposition I - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Revilla claimed ineffective assistance because his counsel failed to file a motion to quash based on insufficient evidence presented at the preliminary hearing. The Court found that the evidentiary standards at a preliminary hearing do not require strict adherence to corroboration rules and that the victim's testimony, along with corroborative evidence, was sufficient for bindover. As such, the claim did not support a finding of ineffective assistance. **Proposition II - Improper Evidence of Other Crimes:** Revilla contended that evidence of his drug use and criminal behavior introduced during cross-examination of character witnesses was prejudicial. The Court noted that this evidence was permissible to challenge the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, defense counsel did not object to this line of questioning, which limited grounds for relief. **Proposition III - Omitting Jury Instruction:** Revilla argued that the trial court improperly omitted an explanation regarding how jurors should treat prior inconsistent statements by the victim. The Court acknowledged the omission but concluded the error did not affect the trial’s outcome since the victim's preliminary statements were not exculpatory. **Proposition IV - Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Revilla alleged various instances of prosecutorial misconduct. The Court found that most complaints lacked timely objections and did not undermine the fairness of the trial. **Proposition V - Cumulative Error:** Revilla asserted that even if individual errors were not significant, their cumulative effect denied him a fair trial. The Court found no cumulative impact from the identified issues. --- ### Decision The Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the District Court of Jackson County. Revilla's claims of error were denied, and his conviction was upheld. **Mandate ordered upon filing of this decision.** **For Appellant:** Kenny Goza **For Appellee:** Mike Hunter, Attorney General **Judges' Concurrence:** Lewis, Lumpkin, Hudson, Rowland all concurred with the opinion. [**Click Here to Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-929_1734877175.pdf)

S-2018-164

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2019
Post category:S

This document is an opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in a criminal case involving Don Arneilus Ingram. The opinion details the legal proceedings stemming from Ingram’s arrest and the subsequent suppression of evidence obtained during that arrest. **Key Points of the Case:** 1. **Charges Against Ingram**: Don Arneilus Ingram faced multiple felony charges including trafficking in illegal drugs, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of proceeds from illegal drug activity, with the state alleging that these crimes were committed after previous felony convictions. 2. **Initial Detention and Arrest**: The arresting officer, Sergeant Greg Bell, initially noticed Ingram driving a vehicle with a temporary tag in a high-crime area. After observing suspicious behavior, including Ingram’s inability to identify a friend he claimed to be visiting, Sgt. Bell approached Ingram to ask questions. This led to Sgt. Bell detaining Ingram for driving without a license. 3. **Search Incident to Arrest**: Following the arrest, Sgt. Bell conducted a search of Ingram, which yielded a large amount of cash and identification. After noticing Ingram acting nervously and attempting to direct his female companion to leave, officers subsequently searched the vehicle Ingram had been driving, finding significant quantities of illegal drugs and a firearm. 4. **Motion to Suppress Evidence**: Ingram filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the search was therefore unlawful. 5. **District Court’s Ruling**: The district court granted Ingram's motion to suppress, determining that the initial contact was not lawful and that the subsequent search of the vehicle was unreasonable. 6. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision**: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's order. The court found that Sgt. Bell's initial interaction with Ingram was a consensual encounter and that sufficient probable cause existed for both the arrest and the search of the vehicle. **Conclusion**: The appellate court concluded that the evidence should not have been suppressed, underscoring the importance of analyzing the totality of circumstances leading to an officer’s determination of probable cause. The decision emphasizes that even behavior that seems innocent in isolation can, when viewed in context, lead to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. For a complete review of this case and its legal implications, interested parties can download a PDF of the full opinion.

RE 2018-0118

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 30, 2019
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2018-0118, Samuel Keith Carolina appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order revoking his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Samuel Keith Carolina had originally been sentenced to twenty years for burglary, but the last ten years were suspended while he followed certain rules. However, in December 2017, the state accused him of committing several new crimes, including assault and battery with a deadly weapon and shooting with intent to kill. Some of these claims were removed before the revocation hearing. At the hearing held on January 30, 2018, the judge found enough evidence to support the state's claims, specifically the first allegation. Carolina argued that the evidence was not strong enough to prove he broke the terms of his sentence. The court explained that to revoke a suspended sentence, the evidence just needs to show that it's more likely true than not, meaning the evidence has to be convincing. Ultimately, because they found that there was enough evidence to support at least one of the violations, the court decided to uphold the revocation of Carolina's suspended sentence.

S-2016-169

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 17, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-169, Patrick Lee Walker appealed his conviction for distributing a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) within 2,000 feet of a school. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that granted Walker's motion to quash and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Walker was charged in Kay County District Court with distributing methamphetamine after a controlled purchase was made by a confidential informant. A deputy had coordinated this controlled buy and testified that the informant bought meth from Walker at a location in Kay County. The informant was searched before the transaction to ensure she had no drugs. After meeting Walker, they drove together to Osage County where the exchange happened. There was a lack of evidence presented about the exact location where the drugs were handed over, which was crucial to prove that the crime occurred within the required distance of a school. During the preliminary hearing, the judge decided that while the distribution started in Kay County, there wasn't enough evidence to show that the drugs were handed over in that county or within 2,000 feet from a school. Because of this, the judge dismissed the case when Walker's defense claimed that the evidence was insufficient. The court discussed whether the trial court had made an error in dismissing the case. The main two arguments from the State's appeal were that the district court wrongly decided it didn't have the required evidence for venue and that it unfairly denied the State's request to amend the Information (the official charge). The court explained that the State must show probable cause that a crime happened and clarify where that crime occurred. They noted that although it was shown that a crime likely happened, it was not in the form correctly charged due to not proving all essential elements of the offense, as required under Oklahoma law. While the trial court's decision to dismiss the case was recognized as legally incorrect, it did not lead to a different outcome because the State did not ask to amend the charge during the hearing. Therefore, even though the lower court may have acted without the right understanding of the law regarding amendments, it did not influence the decision because of the procedural issues involved. The court ultimately upheld the dismissal of the charges against Walker, agreeing with the lower court's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of the crime occurring within the jurisdiction required by law. The ruling was affirmed, and thus the case remained closed without further proceedings.

S-2015-972

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 20, 2016
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.

F-2014-830

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 21, 2016
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-830, Cody Wayne Mayfield appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and failure to stop at a red light. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Count 2 and remand with instructions to dismiss it, while affirming the other counts. One judge dissented. The case involved Mayfield being found guilty of two counts of possession of a controlled dangerous substance and one count of failure to stop at a red light. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the drug charges and ten days in jail for the traffic violation. Mayfield raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that being convicted for two types of possession from the same incident violated double jeopardy rules, which protect against being punished twice for the same crime. He also argued that certain evidence presented in court, including information about his past crimes and a photograph of a piece of cellophane, was not relevant and unfairly biased the jury. The court found that the first count of possession was improperly charged alongside the second due to double jeopardy, so they reversed the second charge. However, in relation to the other arguments, the court decided that the admission of the pen packet evidence and the photograph did not greatly affect the trial's outcome. The court also ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence for Mayfield to claim that he wasn't connected to the drugs found in the area. Additionally, Mayfield's complaints about his lawyer's performance did not lead to a different outcome, as the court found the defense wasn't significantly lacking. Finally, the court noted that Mayfield’s life sentence was appropriate and consistent with the law because of his past criminal record. Most of Mayfield's arguments were rejected, leading to the final decision.

S-2015-446

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2015
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.

S-2014-759

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 31, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-759, #x appealed his conviction for #y. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the case. #n dissented. In this case, the State of Oklahoma charged Chad Allan Lunsford with serious drug crimes. The police found a large amount of methamphetamine and other drug-related items in a car after they stopped the driver for a traffic violation. The driver, Gloria Caffey, was arrested, and Lunsford was also taken into custody after the police found the drugs. Lunsford said the case should be thrown out because the State didn’t prove that he owned or knew about the drugs. He argued that just being in the car wasn’t enough to show that he controlled the drugs. The judge in the district court agreed with Lunsford and dismissed the case, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to show that he had control over the drugs. The court explained that just being near drugs doesn’t mean someone is guilty. There has to be more proof, showing that the person really knew the drugs were there and had control over them. For example, in this case, the drugs were found in a bottle with Caffey's name on it, and she admitted they were hers. Also, there was no clear evidence that Lunsford was trying to hide anything, and he didn’t try to run away when he could. When the State appealed the judge’s decision, the higher court looked at the facts carefully. They reviewed whether the lower court made a mistake in its decision. The higher court found that the lower court was correct in dismissing the case because they didn’t have the right evidence to show Lunsford was guilty. Thus, they agreed to keep the lower court's dismissal. However, one judge did not agree with the decision. This dissenting judge thought that the trial court made a mistake by not considering some evidence that could connect Lunsford to the drugs. They felt that there were enough signs showing Lunsford might have had knowledge and control over the drugs, and the matters should have been decided by a jury. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Lunsford, agreeing that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove he was guilty of the drug charges.

S-2013-140

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 20, 2014
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.

S-2013-415

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-413 & 415, Mark Anthony Herfurth appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Sex Offender Living within 2000 feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Herfurth was taken to court because he was accused of not registering as a sex offender and for living too close to a school after he had been convicted of a crime related to indecent exposure. In his earlier conviction, he had agreed to register as a sex offender for a certain number of years. However, when laws changed in 2007, it meant that people in his situation could be assigned a risk level and have to register for longer. Herfurth argued that he shouldn't be held to the new law because he had already completed his requirements from his original plea. The judge agreed with him and dismissed the charges, saying that the laws could not be applied to him retroactively. The State of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision. They believed that the new law should apply to Herfurth since he was still required to register as a sex offender. They argued that laws are meant to protect the public, and because he was registering at the time of the new law's change, he should follow the new rules. However, upon review, the court decided that the lower court did not make a mistake. They concluded that the 2007 law was a significant change and should only apply going forward, not backward. The court also stated that applying the 2007 law to Herfurth after his original plea would have changed his obligations unfairly. Therefore, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges against Herfurth, stating that they have a duty to interpret laws as they were intended at the time of the original guilty plea. The dissenting judge felt differently, believing that the law should have applied to Herfurth based on the new requirements.

S-2013-413

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

S-2013-103

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 2, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-103, Uriel Alajandro Lopez and Maria Magana appealed their conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling which granted a motion to suppress evidence. One judge dissented. Lopez and Magana were charged in McIntosh County after Trooper Koch stopped their vehicle. Before the trial started, they filed to suppress evidence related to the traffic stop and the search of their vehicle. The district court agreed and granted their motions, leading the state to appeal. The state argued two main points for the appeal. First, they believed the trooper had a valid reason to stop the vehicle, claiming that Magana broke traffic laws by following another vehicle too closely and failing to move for an emergency vehicle. However, the court found that the trooper's basis for the stop was questionable because the laws did not support his reasoning. The trooper said Magana was driving less than two seconds behind a truck, which he thought was unsafe. But he was unable to prove that this was a valid reason under the law. The rules of driving were not clear enough to justify his stop. The court noted that the trooper’s idea of a two-second rule was not mentioned in the traffic laws, which made it hard to understand if there was any real violation. The court also looked at a second reason the state provided, which was that the trooper had seen Magana not move to the left lane for an emergency vehicle. However, the trooper didn’t take any action based on this perceived violation when he stopped the car. Since this point wasn't strongly developed during the hearing, the court didn’t consider it either. Second, the state argued that searching the vehicle was legal because of signs of criminal activity and the consent given by both Lopez and Magana. But since the first argument about the stop was not valid, the search did not hold up in court. Therefore, the appeal was denied and the decision to suppress the evidence was upheld. In conclusion, the court agreed with the district court's decision to grant the motion to suppress, stating that the trooper did not have a good reason for the stop. The opinion from the court was not published for public record, but it reinforced the importance of adhering to the rules of evidence and the proper procedures during traffic stops.

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.

F-2011-4

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 6, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-4, Dara D. Payton appealed her conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order of deferment from the District Court. One judge dissented. Payton was found guilty after a bench trial, which is a trial without a jury. The judge decided not to give her a final judgment or sentence right away, instead deferring it for five years. Payton appealed this decision, raising three main points. First, she argued that her arrest should not have happened because it was made outside the officer's jurisdiction, and the officer did not follow the rules for making a citizen's arrest. Second, she claimed that she should not have to pay certain costs and fees because she relies only on disability benefits for her income. Third, she said the written order of deferment did not match what the judge said in court. The court found that Payton's arrest was legal. Even though the officer was outside his normal area, the court believed he was justified in his actions due to fresh pursuit, meaning he was actively following Payton because he saw her breaking the law. The judge stated that the officer followed Payton, observed her erratic driving behavior, and called for more help when Payton could not pass a sobriety test. The arrest was determined to be lawful under the circumstances. Regarding the costs and fees Payton questioned, the court said it could not decide the issue because she had not properly followed the procedures to dispute them. Payton did not request a hearing or show evidence about her financial situation to the court, making it unclear if the costs should be adjusted. For the written deferment order, the court acknowledged that it did not accurately represent what the judge had said. They decided to send the case back to the District Court to fix these errors so that the written order matched what the judge had pronounced in court, specifically that the deferment period would end on December 11, 2015, and that the supervision by the district attorney would only last for the first two years. In summary, while the court agreed with the deferment and found Payton's arrest valid, they also recognized the need to correct the written order to reflect the judge's original statements properly. The judge's conclusions about the case led to an affirmation of the deferment but a remand for the clerical corrections.

S-2011-765

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-765, Steven Cory Lymen appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the State's appeal to reverse the trial court's decision. The court determined that the trial court did not misuse its authority when it suppressed evidence and dismissed the case. The State had argued that the witness's identification of Lymen was valid despite it being considered unduly suggestive initially, but the court ultimately agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the identification was not reliable.

S-2009-667

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-667, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction concerning Christy Anne Selders. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the decision of the District Court of Tulsa County, which dismissed one of the charges against Selders. One judge dissented. The case began when Selders was charged with trying to make illegal drugs and also for defrauding a hotel. During the preliminary hearing, the judge had to decide if the police had a good reason to search Selders' hotel room and if they could use the evidence found there. After the State presented its case, Selders argued that the police search was not legal because they didn't have the right to enter the hotel room without proper permission. The judge agreed with Selders and decided to dismiss the charge related to manufacturing drugs, saying that the evidence was not strong enough to link Selders to the crime. The State didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal, saying the judge made mistakes. They believed that Selders had given permission for the search and that there was enough evidence to try her. Another judge reviewed the case and eventually decided to uphold the original judge's decision. This judge agreed that the police may have thought they had permission to search, but still, they couldn’t prove that Selders was connected to any illegal activity in the hotel room. After reviewing everything, the court decided not to change the first ruling. They said that the dismissal of the charge was correct and that there was no abuse of discretion by the judges involved in the case. In the end, the court confirmed that the order to dismiss the charge against Selders was valid, meaning she would not face trial for that particular accusation.

F-2007-432

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 17, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-432, Keyion Kaseen Terry appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Drug in Jail (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss Terry’s conviction due to jurisdictional issues related to a motion to quash that had been granted by the trial court, which indicated insufficient evidence to proceed with that charge. One member of the court dissented, expressing frustration over the outcome and arguing that the trial court should have retained the ability to reinstate the charge since the original ruling to quash was seen as erroneous.

S-2007-779

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

In OCCA case No. S-2007-779, Wilma Fay Jackson appealed her conviction for eighty-four felony counts and two misdemeanor counts of Obtaining Money by False Pretenses. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's dismissal of the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Jackson was charged with serious offenses for falsely representing herself as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and receiving payments for work she did under that title. However, the district court found that there wasn't enough evidence to support the claims against her and dismissed the charges. The state then appealed this decision, claiming that the district court made a mistake in its ruling. The court looked closely at the evidence and the laws involved. They determined that the district court had correctly dismissed the charges because the state did not prove that Jackson had committed the crime as charged. The court pointed out that a key part of the crime was missing—a false representation that resulted in getting something of value without giving anything in return. The district court had ruled that the state did not show enough proof that Jackson had committed fraud. In the dissenting opinion, one judge expressed a different view. This judge believed that even though Jackson had worked at the nursing home, she had misrepresented her qualifications. The judge argued that the nursing home had been tricked into paying her as if she was a licensed nurse and that this should matter legally. The dissenting opinion felt that Jackson's actions deprived the nursing home of the services they expected. In conclusion, the appeal did not change the outcome, and the district court's dismissal of the charges against Jackson was upheld.

S-2007-31

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 7, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-31, Riccardo Gino Ferrante appealed his conviction for violating Oklahoma's Peeping Tom statute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order that granted the defendant's motion to quash the charges. One judge dissented. The facts of the case began when Mr. Ferrante was charged with taking inappropriate photographs of a woman in a store without her permission. The law he was charged under says that it is not allowed to use cameras to secretly take pictures of someone in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like dressing rooms or restrooms. The key issue in this case was whether the woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy when she was in the store. The district court decided that the law did not apply in this situation because the store was not a place where the woman could expect privacy. The State of Oklahoma disagreed and appealed the decision. However, the court agreed with the lower court's analysis, saying that the law is clear and does not include what the defendant did. They explained that they cannot expand the law beyond its clear meaning. Ultimately, the higher court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Ferrante, saying the action he took was not against the law as written. One judge felt strongly that this decision was wrong and pointed out that when someone dresses modestly, they expect their covered body to remain private. This dissent illustrates the concern about privacy rights for individuals in public spaces.

S-2006-117

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2006-117, the husband and wife, Larrie and Theresa Moyers, appealed their case concerning charges related to a scheme to defraud the State. They were originally indicted for multiple counts including conspiracy, bribery, and tax violations. Larrie had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence. Later, he sought to modify this sentence, which the court granted by reducing his time in prison and adding conditions like probation and treatment. After this modification, the State brought new charges against both Larrie and Theresa. They argued that these charges were unfair and retaliatory, claiming it was revenge for the sentence modification. The trial court agreed, finding that the new charges were indeed retaliatory and dismissed them, stating that this was against due process rights. The State then appealed this dismissal. The court reviewed whether it could hear the appeal and decided it could, as the dismissal was tied to constitutional issues. Ultimately, they affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the State's action against the Moyers was inappropriate. The decision was published and affirmed the dismissal of all charges against them, maintaining the previous ruling of retaliation based on the lawful actions taken by Larrie Moyers to modify his sentence.

S 2005-702

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 23, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2005-702, Roley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse/Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling. One judge dissented. Michael Ray Roley was charged with child abuse/neglect. This case started in Creek County District Court on November 9, 2004. After some hearings, the judge let Roley go free by granting a motion to quash, which means the charges against him were dismissed before a trial could happen. The State of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting Roley, didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal it. They brought up three main points they believed were wrong with the judge's ruling. First, they argued that a previous case about a person’s right to confront witnesses didn’t apply to preliminary hearings. They said Roley was claiming a right to confront witnesses too early. Second, the State believed that Roley should not have been allowed to extend this right to preliminary hearings in such a broad way. Finally, they suggested that the court should consider the need to protect the child who was the victim in this case. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the trial judge’s decision. They highlighted that Oklahoma’s Constitution and laws give a person a right to confront witnesses during preliminary hearings, just like in a full trial. The court also noted that hearsay evidence, or what someone said out of court, could not be used unless the person who made the statement was unavailable. In this case, the children who were supposed to testify did not do so, making what the State presented unacceptable to prove that a crime had happened. The judges deliberated and concluded that the trial judge acted correctly when deciding not to allow the case to proceed based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the court supported the decision of the trial court to grant the motion to quash the charges against Roley, keeping him from being tried. In the end, the court affirmed the lower decision and stated that they would issue a mandate to finalize the ruling. One judge had a different opinion and disagreed, but the majority agreed that the earlier ruling should stand.

S-2005-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-866, Matthew Ryan Wells appealed his conviction for several charges including trafficking in illegal drugs and use of a weapon in commission of a crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court, which had sustained Wells' motion to quash the information, meaning that the charges against him could not move forward. One judge dissented.

SR-2003-276

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 30, 2004
Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2003-276, Stephen Lee Terry appealed his conviction for indecent or lewd acts with a child under sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that dismissed the charges against him. One judge dissented. The case started when Terry was caught secretly videotaping young girls, aged eight to twelve, at a public place. He admitted that he watched these videos for sexual gratification. The court had to decide if his actions were considered a crime under the law. For the law to apply, it needed to be proven that he looked at the body or private parts of the girls, which is one of the elements that must be shown in such cases. The trial court ruled in Terry's favor, stating that simply filming clothed girls in a public space did not meet the legal definition required for the charge against him. While Terry's actions might be seen as inappropriate or offensive, the court concluded that what he did did not violate the law according to the specific requirements set out. Thus, they confirmed the trial court's decision.

F 2000-515

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 17, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-515, Larry Alan Schroeder appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes including burglary and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions and sentences but reversed some related to specific counts due to insufficient evidence and legal issues. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of certain burglary counts, believing there was enough evidence to support those convictions. Ultimately, some charges were upheld while others were dismissed, shaping the outcome of the appeal.