Paraphernalia Archives - OCCA Opinions

F-2008-289

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 3, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-289, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug, marijuana, and paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the termination of the appellant from the Drug Court Program, agreeing that the trial court abused its discretion in the decision, and reinstated the appellant to the Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who had entered a Drug Court Program after pleading guilty to drug charges. Initially, the appellant struggled with substance abuse but made significant progress over the years, living a more stable life and regaining custody of her children. However, the situation changed when she was arrested for driving under the influence after having two drinks on a night out. At a court hearing, her termination from the Drug Court Program was discussed. Some witnesses testified that the appellant's actions should not classify as a relapse in her recovery process since she had remained sober for over 400 days before the incident. They argued that even though she made a poor choice by drinking and driving, it did not warrant her removal from the program, especially since she showed great progress in her life. However, the court disagreed with the trial judge's decision to terminate the appellant. The appellate court found that the termination was not justified since the overall evidence suggested that the appellant could successfully complete the Drug Court Program despite the DUI incident. The court emphasized the importance of allowing participants ample time to change their behaviors and succeed in treatment. As a result, the appellate court reversed the termination order and instructed the lower court to reinstate the appellant in the Drug Court Program, allowing her to continue working toward completing her treatment plan.

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court, which had sustained Wells' motion to quash the information, meaning that the charges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.

M-2001-174

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 26, 2002
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2001-174, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of paraphernalia (a crack pipe). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Two judges dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty after a jury trial in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was the maximum for this crime. The appellant raised several points of error in his appeal, including claims that his rights to represent himself were violated, and that the evidence against him was insufficient. During the trial process, the appellant continuously expressed his desire to represent himself. However, several judges denied his requests, primarily because they believed he might be at a disadvantage without a lawyer. The court ultimately found that the denial of the right to self-representation is a serious issue, which could result in an automatic reversal of a conviction. In examining the evidence, the court noted that while the appellant was in a motel room where the crack pipe was found, it wasn’t enough to support the conviction. The main issues that prompted the reversal were related to the appellant's right to represent himself. The court ruled that the previous decisions denying this right were not valid grounds. The absence of a warning about self-representation conduct and the lack of clarity about the rights involved led the court to conclude that the appellant's conviction could not stand. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial, allowing the appellant the chance to properly represent himself if he chose to.