Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053.1

S-2015-672

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingS-2015-672

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

S-2012-719

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-719, Robert Brooke appealed his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Transporting an Open Bottle or Container of Liquor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order deferring judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case began when Robert Brooke was charged with DUI and another alcohol-related offense. He entered a guilty plea but had a disagreement about whether he must serve time in jail or undergo inpatient treatment. The lower court decided to defer his sentencing for five years and found that the law requiring jail time or inpatient treatment was not enforceable in this situation. The state argued that the law clearly required jail time or inpatient treatment since it was Brooke's second DUI-related charge. However, the court explained that since a plea deal did not count as a conviction, the conditions related to jail or treatment did not apply. Instead, they found that Brooke should follow the recommendations given from his alcohol assessment, which included certain programs, rather than being required to serve time. The court looked closely at the wording of the law and decided that the terms about jail time only apply when there is a conviction. Since they did not convict Brooke but only deferred his sentencing, those specific requirements did not apply to him. The court also mentioned that while the law could be seen as constitutional, it did not matter in this case since they determined it was not applicable. Thus, they upheld the lower court's decision, allowing Brooke to complete the programs without being sentenced to time in jail. The final judgment was to affirm the decision of the District Court, allowing Brooke to follow through with the treatment required instead of serving jail time.

Continue ReadingS-2012-719

S-2011-544

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-544, the State of Oklahoma appealed a court's decision where evidence was suppressed in a criminal case. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling. One member of the court did not agree with this decision. The case began when the district court, under the Special Judge, found that the State had not followed the rules about sharing evidence, known as the Discovery Code. The State argued that it had done nothing wrong and claimed that the court should not have punished them for this. They believed the judge’s decision to tell the jury about the supposed violation was also wrong, especially since they didn't act in bad faith. The court examined the arguments from both sides and concluded that the district court did not make a mistake. They believed that the State really did not follow the rules and agreed that it was appropriate to impose penalties for this. The court also explained that they don't usually review jury instructions in these matters. Ultimately, the higher court decided to keep the ruling from the district court, meaning the previous decision to suppress the evidence remained in effect. The ruling was considered important in the context of the legal process. In the end, the reasoning emphasized that having a fair process helps both sides in a case and that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each other's arguments can make trials go better. Even though some might think the penalties were harsh, the court felt it was essential to make sure that such rules are followed in the future.

Continue ReadingS-2011-544

S-2011-543

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-543, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction for suppressing evidence against DAREN LEVI GEYER. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's order. The judges noted that the trial court was correct in determining that the State had violated rules regarding evidence disclosure and imposed sanctions on the State for not following these rules. The court found that the State's failures warranted these sanctions, and the imposition of a jury instruction against the State was also upheld. One judge dissented, emphasizing the importance of fair play in the discovery process during trials.

Continue ReadingS-2011-543

S-2009-944

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-944, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act did not apply to the defendant. A dissenting opinion was not stated. The case involved the defendant, who was previously charged under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The key question was whether later amendments to the law should apply to him or not, given that he had entered a plea in 1999 and had complied with the previous legal conditions. The magistrate in the lower court determined that the law changes would be unfair to apply retroactively in the defendant's case. The court explained that new laws usually apply to future actions unless they are explicitly stated to have retroactive effects. They found no clear indication in the legislature's changes to imply that the new requirements should apply to those who had already been sentenced under the old rules. The court confirmed that since the amendments would change the defendant's obligations significantly, these substantive changes should not apply to him. As a result, the decision maintained that the lower court's refusal to move forward on the charge against the defendant could stand, with the matter being sent back to the District Court for any further actions needed, while affirming that the defendant was correct in his assertion that the recent amendments did not apply to him.

Continue ReadingS-2009-944