Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance

SR-2022-250

  • Post author:
  • Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2022-250, Dustin Daukei-Cole appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. One judge dissented. Dustin Daukei-Cole was found guilty of possessing illegal drugs and was given a sentence of five years in prison, with three years of that sentence held back, called a suspended sentence. This meant that he wouldn't go to prison for those three years unless he broke the rules again. Later, the state wanted to take away those three years because they claimed he had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence. The trial court held a hearing and decided that they could only revoke one year of his sentence instead of the full three years because the law had changed. The state didn't agree with this decision and tried to appeal, asking the court to consider whether the law allowing this ruling was against the state constitution. However, the court explained that states can only appeal in certain situations, and this case did not fit that requirement. They highlighted that previous rulings allowed appeals only in cases where someone had been found not guilty or where there was a judgment preventing further prosecution. Since there wasn't a rule blocking further prosecution or an acquittal in this case, the court dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the court said that the original decision to limit the time revoked was correct and the state could not appeal this issue. The judges decided not to change the trial court's decision.

Continue ReadingSR-2022-250

F-2019-310

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-310, Kedrin Ray Dixon appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary, sexual battery, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the sentence for sexual battery to ten years imprisonment, making it consecutive to the other sentence, and otherwise affirmed the convictions. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for sexual battery. Dixon was found guilty by a jury on multiple counts after a trial in the District Court of Washington County. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison for burglary and sexual battery, and one year for possession of a controlled substance. The trial judge ordered the sentences for burglary and sexual battery to be served back-to-back. Dixon then appealed, raising several points of error, including issues related to jury instructions and evidence. The first issue was about the trial judge not mentioning that he was presumed innocent in the instructions at the start of the trial. The court found this error was not significant since the final instructions did include the presumption of innocence. Next, Dixon claimed that the evidence was not strong enough for the first-degree burglary conviction. The court disagreed, stating that there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty. Dixon also argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence regarding his intoxication at the time of the crime. The court ruled that the trial judge had the right to refuse his request since the evidence did not clearly support intoxication as a defense. Another point of concern for Dixon was what he called evidentiary harpoons, which are when comments are made that suggest knowledge of other crimes. The court found that he did not object to these comments at the trial and they did not seriously affect the verdict. Dixon claimed that he was unfairly prevented from presenting a full defense regarding reports of his previous erratic behaviors. The court decided that these reports were not very relevant to his defense and that excluding them did not significantly harm his case. A notable issue was a mistake in how the jury was informed about the potential punishment for sexual battery. The trial judge incorrectly stated that it could be punished by twenty years, which was incorrect. The State agreed that this was an error. Instead of sending Dixon back for a new trial, the court decided to lower his sentence for sexual battery to ten years because of this error. Dixon stated that his total sentences were too harsh, but after reviewing the circumstances, the court determined that the sentences were acceptable even after the changes made to one of them. Lastly, Dixon argued that there were too many errors in the case that made it unfair for him. The court did acknowledge the instructional error but believed there were no other significant errors affecting the outcome of the trial. In summary, the court modified Dixon's sentence for sexual battery and kept the other parts of his conviction intact. The final decision still upheld his guilty verdicts on all counts.

Continue ReadingF-2019-310

F-2019-99

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **WILLIAM ALVIN WIMBLEY,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. F-2019-99** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JAN 30 2020** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:** On April 30, 2018, Appellant entered pleas of guilty in McCurtain County District Court to the following charges: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 1, Case No. CF-2016-103) and multiple counts in Case No. CF-2017-147, including another charge of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 1), Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2), and another Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 3). As part of a plea agreement, Appellant was admitted to the McCurtain County Drug Court Program, which stipulated that successful completion would lead to the dismissal of charges, while termination would result in a twenty-year imprisonment sentence for all four counts, served concurrently. Subsequently, on October 3, 2018, the State filed an Application to Revoke from Drug Court, citing numerous violations of the program's terms by Appellant despite receiving multiple graduated sanctions. A hearing was conducted, resulting in the Honorable Walter Hamilton, Special Judge, determining the defendant had indeed violated his performance contract, leading to his termination from the drug court program and imposition of the agreed twenty-year sentence. Appellant's sole proposition for appeal is grounded in an assertion of ineffective assistance of termination counsel, based on comments made by Judge Hamilton during the hearing regarding the sentencing implications of the termination and potential reversal by this Court. Under the legal framework established by *Strickland v. Washington*, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance, an appellant must demonstrate (1) deficient performance by counsel and (2) resulting prejudice. Appellant's claim does not find support in the record, as he fails to establish that his counsel's performance was deficient under *Strickland*'s rigorous standards. Termination of drug court participation, as outlined by Oklahoma law, requires a factual determination by the trial court regarding violations of the performance contract and the sufficiency of disciplinary sanctions. Judge Hamilton's determination hinged on whether any violations were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than any alleged bias from his statements. Ultimately, Appellant has not demonstrated that Judge Hamilton abused his discretion in terminating his drug court participation. **DECISION** The termination of Appellant's participation in the McCurtain County District Court Drug Court in Case Nos. CF-2016-103 and CF-2017-147 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the **MANDATE** is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. **TERM OF THE COURT:** **Affirmed.** **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur *Counsel in trial and on appeal: Hugh Hood (Appellant's Counsel), Mark Uptegrove, and others representing the State.*

Continue ReadingF-2019-99

RE-2018-1217

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DEXTER JEROME BIGLOW,** Appellant, **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **Case No. RE-2018-1217** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 19 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** KUEHN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Dexter Jerome Biglow appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-3262. On February 14, 2018, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to Aggravated Attempting to Elude and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (marijuana). He was sentenced to five years of imprisonment on the eluding count and to one year of incarceration on the drug charge, to be served concurrently, with both sentences suspended. On November 6, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke the suspended sentences, alleging that Appellant had committed the new crimes of domestic abuse by strangulation and domestic abuse resulting in great bodily injury. A hearing on the application to revoke was held on November 27, 2018, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, who granted the State's application and revoked Appellant's suspended sentences in full. On appeal, Appellant contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the allegations contained in the application to revoke. We respectfully disagree. **ANALYSIS** At a revocation hearing, the focus is whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated, with the standard of proof being a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court's decision should not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. In this case, both Officers Taylor and Mueggenborg testified at the hearing, having individually interviewed the alleged victim of the domestic abuse. The judge found their testimony had substantial guarantees of trustworthiness, which allowed the court to consider the victim's out-of-court statements. Notably, while the testimony was contradictory, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding the State adequately proved its case for revocation. The credibility of witnesses is a matter for the trial court, which may choose to believe or disbelieve any witness. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2017-3262 is therefore AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** Thomas P. Hurley - Assistant Public Defender Marva A. Banks - Assistant Public Defender Danielle Connolly - Assistant District Attorney Mike Hunter - Oklahoma Attorney General Tessa L. Henry - Assistant Attorney General **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J.: LEVIS, P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR

Continue ReadingRE-2018-1217

F-2018-1137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Parron Lavon Burrus. Burrus was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, after being found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Caddo County. The court sentenced him to 30 years in prison for the first count and 25 years for the second, running consecutively. In the appeal, Burrus contended that the sentences were excessive and should be modified. He argued that the offenses were interconnected and that the trial court exhibited prejudice against him during sentencing, referencing the requirement for his testimony to be under oath and the judge's prior role in prosecuting him. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence. The court noted that the sentences fell within the statutory range, that there is no constitutional right to concurrent sentences, and that Burrus did not demonstrate that the trial judge's actions or previous involvement in prior prosecutions caused an unfair sentencing outcome. The court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in sentencing, emphasizing the separate nature of the offenses committed by Burrus. In essence, the appeal was denied, and the court's decision was upheld, confirming the sentences imposed on Burrus.

Continue ReadingF-2018-1137

F 2018-0812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2018-0812, Cesar Jurado appealed his conviction for various drug-related offenses and weapon possession. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences; he had previously entered guilty pleas to several felony charges. The State had applied to accelerate his deferred sentences based on new serious crimes he was alleged to have committed. Jurado argued that the evidence used to support this decision was based on unreliable testimony from a witness who did not appear in person. He claimed this was an abuse of discretion. The court found that the trial court acted within its rights and that there was enough evidence to support the acceleration of Jurado's sentences. It concluded that Jurado did not prove that there was any improper action taken by the trial court. Therefore, his appeal was denied, and the acceleration of his sentences was upheld. One justice dissented from this opinion.

Continue ReadingF 2018-0812

F 2018-0812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, the case of Cesar Jurado is summarized as follows: **Background:** Cesar Jurado pled guilty in multiple cases in December 2015, including felonies for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute, among other charges. After completing a Delayed Sentencing Program for Youthful Offenders, his sentences were deferred until June 14, 2026. **Acceleration of Sentences:** In January 2018, the State sought to accelerate Jurado's deferred sentences, claiming he committed new crimes, including Murder in the First Degree and Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Following a hearing in July 2018, Jurado's deferred sentences were accelerated, resulting in life imprisonment on several counts, which were to run concurrently. **Appeal:** Jurado appealed the trial court's decision to accelerate his sentences, arguing that it was an abuse of discretion based on the uncorroborated testimony of an unreliable witness, who did not provide in-person testimony. **Court's Decision:** The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the lower court, finding no abuse of discretion in allowing the State to introduce the transcript of a preliminary hearing as evidence. The court noted that the Appellant's counsel had the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses during the preliminary hearing. The standard of proof for violations of deferred sentences is a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court has discretion in such matters. **Conclusion:** The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the acceleration of Jurado's deferred sentences, concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion based on the evidence presented. **Mandate:** The mandate for this decision is to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. **Opinion by:** Judge Hudson, with Judges Lewis and Kuehn concurring, and Judge Rowland recused. For more detailed information, you can download the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-610_1735310684.pdf).

Continue ReadingF 2018-0812

RE-2018-868

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS / OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 12 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN** **CLERK** --- **MISTY DAWN BARRETT,** **Appellant,** **V.** **No. RE-2018-868** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Misty Dawn Barrett appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences in Muskogee County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-439, CF-2017-126, CF-2017-127, and CF-2017-129. Appellant faced multiple charges across these cases, including Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Larceny of an Automobile, and Identity Theft, among others. After entering pleas and being convicted, she received several sentences which were subsequently suspended to be served concurrently. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence in all four cases, leading to a partial revocation of five years of her suspended sentences on October 25, 2017. A second Application to Revoke was filed on July 25, 2018, for new alleged crimes, leading to a revocation hearing where the trial court, presided over by Judge Mike Norman, revoked her remaining suspended sentences in full. In her appeal, Appellant argues that the full revocation was excessive, asserting that her past actions should have been anticipated due to her struggles with drug addiction, and claiming that incarceration is not an effective remedy for her situation. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court. A revocation will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, ¶ 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565). The State established sufficient grounds for revocation through competent evidence presented during the hearing. Appellant had previously benefited from leniency when only part of her suspended sentence was revoked. After reoffending post-incarceration, Appellant demonstrated that a suspended sentence is a privilege rather than a right (Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 8, 990 P.2d 894, 897). **DECISION** The full revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Muskogee County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-439, CF-2017-126, CF-2017-127, and CF-2017-129 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the **MANDATE** is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE MIKE NORMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION** **DANIEL MEDLOCK** 620 W. BROADWAY MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** **NICOLLETTE BRANDT** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** **TIMOTHY KING** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 220 STATE ST. MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 **COUNSEL FOR STATE** **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL **CAROLINE HUNT** ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 **COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE** --- **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **HUDSON, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR RA/F --- [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-868_1734360560.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-868

M-2018-335

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JULIUS LAMAR WRIGHT,** Appellant, **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE 2018-0144** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JUL 11 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Julius Lamar Wright entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-228, for Count 1 - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute (Marijuana) and Count 2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. On April 28, 2009, Appellant received a five-year deferred sentence on each count. On March 6, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to allegations in the application to accelerate his deferred sentences, resulting in a ten-year suspended sentence (first five years in custody) for Count 1, and one year in the Oklahoma County Jail for Count 2. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with CF-2011-1457. Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse by Strangulation on December 9, 2015, in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-8860. He entered a no contest plea and was given a ten-year suspended sentence with probation conditions, which ran concurrently with the earlier cases and included credit for time served. The State's motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2009-228 due to the new charge and failure to pay restitution was dismissed on June 28, 2016, as part of the plea agreement in Case No. CF-2015-8860. On June 29, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in Cases CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860, alleging a new crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-2733. After a revocation hearing on January 31, 2018, Appellant's suspended sentences in both cases were revoked. Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences, raising two propositions of error: 1. The evidence presented during his revocation hearing should have been excluded as it was obtained through egregious police conduct violating his Fourth Amendment rights. 2. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant's sentences in full, constituting a violation of his due process rights and resulting in an excessive sentence. We affirm the District Court's decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentences in full. Appellant's first argument was not raised at the revocation hearing, leading us to review for plain error. To claim relief under the plain error doctrine, Appellant must prove: (1) an actual error occurred; (2) the error is clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, impacting the outcome of the hearing. We find no plain error and conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding Appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentences. Regarding the second argument, the court has broad discretion in revoking suspended sentences, and this discretion will not be disturbed without showing an abuse thereof. Appellant has not demonstrated any such abuse. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2009-228 and CF-2015-8860 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS** **THOMAS HURLEY** **MARVA A. BANKS** Assistant Public Defender Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 611 County Office Building 320 Robert S. Kerr Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for Defendant **KIRK MARTIN** Assistant District Attorney Oklahoma County 320 Robert S. Kerr Suite 505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur **[PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/M-2018-335_1734421708.pdf)**

Continue ReadingM-2018-335

F-2018-646

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

The document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding the appeal of Ashley Dawn Bost. She was convicted of several offenses in LeFlore County District Court, including trafficking in illegal drugs and possession of a controlled substance, along with additional charges related to a firearm and drug paraphernalia. In her appeal, Bost raised a single proposition of error arguing that her convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of oxycodone violated the prohibition against multiple punishments for a single offense, as outlined in 21 O.S.2011, § 11. The court found that Bost did not preserve this argument for appeal as she failed to raise it during the trial, thus waiving her right to full review, except for considering it for plain error. The appellate court applied a three-part test for assessing plain error and determined that Bost did not demonstrate actual or plain error. The court explained that the analysis under Section 11 focuses on the relationship between the crimes and whether they require different proofs. Since the two charges involved different drugs and amounts required for trafficking and possession, the court concluded that they were indeed separate and distinct offenses and affirmed the trial court's judgments and sentences. The court's final decision was to affirm Bost's convictions and sentences, with the mandate ordered to be issued promptly. The opinion included a list of counsel for both the appellant and the appellee. For more information, a link to the full opinion is provided at the end of the summary.

Continue ReadingF-2018-646

RE-2018-536

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **CHRISTIAN EMMANUEL REYES,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-536** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 20 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN - SUMMARY OPINION** **CLERK** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Christian Emmanuel Reyes appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-6460 and CF-2017-3715 by Honorable Glenn Jones. **Background:** On November 13, 2013, Appellant pled guilty to Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer in Case No. CF-2013-6460. The trial court sentenced him on July 30, 2014, to five years with all but two years suspended for Count 1, and one year for Count 3, to run concurrently. On July 6, 2017, Appellant pled guilty to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor in Case No. CF-2017-3715, receiving a five-year sentence with all but 100 days suspended. The State agreed not to file for revocation on Case No. CF-2013-6460 as part of the plea deal. On April 6, 2018, the State filed a 1st Amended Application to Revoke, citing non-payment of fees and the commission of a new crime, Second Degree Burglary, in a separate case (CF-2017-6227). Following a revocation hearing, the trial court fully revoked Appellant’s suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Improper Introduction of Evidence:** Appellant argues the State’s introduction of testimony regarding his behavior violated 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B) and the standards set forth in *Burks v. State*. He claims he did not receive proper notice and therefore is entitled to relief. He made no objection during the hearing, waiving this issue except for plain error review. Appellant's argument fails, as he did not demonstrate that any error occurred. 2. **Insufficient Evidence of Burglary:** Appellant contends the State failed to prove he entered the victim’s home intending to steal. However, sufficient evidence supported that he intended to steal, meeting the *preponderance of the evidence* standard required in revocation hearings. **Conclusion:** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences is affirmed, as the court found competent evidence to justify the revocation and there was no abuse of discretion. **MANDATE** is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** Micah Sielert and Hallie Bovos for Appellant; Tiffany Noble and Mike Hunter for the State; Tessa Henry for Appellee. **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** CONCUR IN RESULTS **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.:** CONCUR [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-536_1734522451.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-536

RE-2018-435

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSE FIGUEROA MESTA,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-435** **FILED** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 20 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1. On March 4, 2016, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Within 1,000 Feet of a Park, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402(C)(1). The Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge, convicted Appellant and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, with all but the first eighty days suspended. On February 27, 2018, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence alleging Appellant failed to submit probation reports; failed to report his arrest for public intoxication; moved back into Oklahoma without reporting it to the district court; and committed new crimes of Possession of a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, Within 2000 Feet of a School or Park, With Intent to Distribute (Count 1), and Possession of CDS Without a Tax Stamp Affixed (Count 2) as alleged in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2018-58. Following a hearing, Judge Parsley revoked Appellant's remaining suspended sentence in full. **Proposition I:** Appellant alleges the trial court erred in assessing him attorney fees of $500, which he claims exceeds the amount allowed by statute. **Proposition II:** Appellant argues he cannot be assessed the costs of his incarceration because he is mentally ill. These claims are outside the scope of a revocation appeal. The consequence of judicial revocation is to execute a penalty previously imposed in the judgment and sentence. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. As noted on numerous occasions, arguments regarding attorney fees and incarceration costs are administrative and not properly presented as part of the appeal of an order revoking a suspended sentence. Thus, we deny Propositions I and II. **Proposition III:** Appellant objects to the inclusion of post-imprisonment supervision in the revocation order. The State concedes this point, arguing the issue is moot because Judge Parsley entered an amended revocation order on January 17, 2019, deleting post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. We agree that this proposition is moot. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or part is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Appellant has not established that Judge Parsley abused his discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** AT REVOCATION **VONDA WILKINS** P.O. BOX 1486 GUYMON, OK 73492 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ON APPEAL **LISBETH McCARTY** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **TAOS SMITH** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 319 N. MAIN GUYMON, OK 73942 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL KEELEY MILLER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J:** Concur **ROWLAND, J:** Concur [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-435_1734691413.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-435

RE-2018-30

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

The case presented involves Marty Wayne Green, who appealed the termination of his participation in the Seminole County Anna McBride Court Program after a series of violations related to his plea agreement and mental health treatment. Here's a summary of the court's findings and rulings: 1. **Background**: Green pleaded guilty to Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation and was sentenced to a suspended seven-year prison term. He entered the Anna McBride Court Program as part of his sentence. 2. **Violation Allegations**: The State filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence, alleging that Green had failed to comply with program requirements, including not attending counseling sessions, testing positive for substances, and committing new offenses. 3. **Hearing Outcome**: After hearing the motion, District Judge George W. Butner terminated Green's participation in the mental health court program based on these violations and sentenced him to the full term of imprisonment. 4. **Propositions on Appeal**: - **Proposition I**: Green argued he should be credited for time served. The court ruled against this, clarifying that since he was not sentenced under the Oklahoma Community Sentencing Act, he had no entitlement to such credit. - **Proposition II**: This proposition did not challenge the validity of the termination order and was deemed improperly before the court. It did not affect the legality of the termination itself. - **Proposition III**: Green contended that the trial court abused its discretion by not seeking lesser sanctions before terminating his participation. The court found that the judge had discretion to terminate the program due to Green's repeated violations and potential danger to himself and others. 5. **Conclusion**: The court affirmed the termination of Green's participation in the Anna McBride Court Program, ruling that the judge acted within his discretion based on the facts presented and the violations of the program. The final decision upheld the termination, emphasizing the importance of compliance with mental health treatment programs and the discretion of judges in such cases. The ruling highlights the responsibility of participants in such programs to adhere to established agreements and the potential consequences of failing to comply.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-30

RE-2018-234

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JERRY WAYNE LANDS, NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **Appellant,** **v.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-234** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:** On March 7, 2008, Appellant Jerry Wayne Lands, represented by counsel, entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the charge of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) After Former Conviction of a Felony in Pittsburg County Case No. CF-2007-420. He was sentenced to ten (10) years, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. Between May 2008 and March 2009, at least five (5) applications to revoke his probation were filed. On December 5, 2008, Lands was charged with additional offenses and ultimately, on April 13, 2009, the district court revoked five years of his suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2007-420. Subsequent to Lands' guilty plea in Case No. CF-2008-526, where he received a ten-year sentence with five years suspended, the State filed multiple revocation applications in both cases. On October 26, 2017, the State filed another Application to Revoke Lands' suspended sentences, which culminated in a full revocation during a hearing held on July 11, 2017. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR:** 1. Lands contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to grant a continuance for him to hire counsel. 2. He argues there was no valid waiver of the twenty-day requirement, resulting in loss of jurisdiction to revoke his sentence. 3. He claims the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations in the revocation motions. 4. He asserts the revocation of his entire remaining sentences was excessive. **DECISION:** 1. **Continuance Denial:** The court found no abuse of discretion by Judge Hogan in denying the requested continuance, which was sought on the day of the hearing without prior notification of intent to hire private counsel. 2. **Waiver of the 20-Day Rule:** The waiver was valid despite Lands' claim that it was made without the representation of counsel, as the appellate record indicated he knowingly waived his right to a timely hearing. 3. **Sufficiency of Evidence:** The court ruled there was sufficient evidence to warrant revocation of Lands' suspended sentences. Violations of probation can be established by a preponderance of evidence, and the record supported the trial court's findings. 4. **Excessiveness of Revocation:** The court concluded that revocation of Lands' entire suspended sentences was not excessive, given his extensive history of probation violations. **RULING:** The order of the District Court of Pittsburg County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is **AFFIRMED**. **COUNSEL:** *Appellant:* Wesley J. Cherry *Appellee:* Max E. Moss, Jr., Assistant District Attorney; Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma **OPINION BY:** KUEHN, V.P.J. *LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR* *LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS* *HUDSON, J.: CONCUR* *ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR* **MANDATE ORDERED.** For a complete view and reference, [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-234_1734698244.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-234

RE-2018-208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DESMOND ZHUMONSHA SMITH,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-208** **Summary Opinion** **FILED MAY 16, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Desmond Zhumonsha Smith appeals the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Garvin County District Court, Case No. CF-2015-498, presided over by the Honorable Leah Edwards. On February 26, 2016, Smith entered a plea of nolo contendere to charges of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Falsely Personate Another to Create Liability. He was subsequently sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for each count. In his first proposition of error, Smith contends that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that he violated the conditions of his probation by engaging in new criminal behavior, specifically Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Placing Bodily Fluid on a Government Employee. Upon review, this assertion lacks merit. The standard applicable in revocation hearings is a preponderance of the evidence, which requires the State to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the violations occurred (Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10). Testimony from Officer Cooper and Sheriff Rhodes sufficiently established the necessary proof of Smith's involvement in the new crimes. In his second proposition, Smith argues that the revocation of ten years of his twenty-year suspended sentence is excessive and asserts that it should be modified. The law stipulates that proving just one violation of probation is adequate for revocation (Tilden, 2013 OK CR 10). In this case, the State demonstrated multiple violations, including new charges from two counties. Furthermore, Judge Edwards did not fully revoke Smith's remaining sentence, affirming that such decisions fall under the trial court's discretion, which will not be overturned unless an abuse of that discretion is clearly shown (Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20). **DECISION:** The revocation of Desmond Zhumonsha Smith’s suspended sentence in Garvin County District Court Case No. CF-2015-498 is **AFFIRMED**. The mandate is ordered to be issued upon the filing of this decision, pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. **APPEARANCES:** **For Defendant:** Arlan Bullard 110 N. Willow St., Ste. B Pauls Valley, OK 73075 **For Appellant:** Kristi Christopher P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 **For State:** Laura A. McClain Asst. District Attorney 201 W. Grant St., Room 15 Pauls Valley, OK 73075 Mike Hunter Attorney General of Oklahoma Theodore M. Peeper Asst. Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 **OPINION BY:** Kuehn, V.P.J. **CONCUR:** Lewis, P.J., Lumpkin, J., Hudson, J. **CONCUR IN RESULTS:** Rowland, J. [**Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-208_1734702735.pdf)

Continue ReadingRE-2018-208

F-2018-202

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-202, the appellant appealed her conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, conspiracy to commit a felony, kidnapping, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved Katherine Marie Houser, who was found guilty by a jury for several serious crimes. The jury gave her a variety of sentences, including five years for robbery, two years for possession of a firearm during a felony, and six months for kidnapping. Some of these sentences were set to run at the same time, which is called concurrent sentences. Katherine argued that her lawyer did not represent her well, especially by not challenging one of the counts against her (the possession of a firearm). Although this count was eventually dismissed by the state, she felt that just being tried for it affected the jury’s decisions on other counts. The court looked at this claim and decided that even if the lawyer made a mistake, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. The evidence against her for the other charges was strong, and the jurors weren’t likely swayed by having one extra charge against her. In her second argument, Katherine said that a fine imposed on her should not count because the judge did not mention it during the sentencing, even though she hadn’t complained about it at that time. The court found that since she didn’t raise an issue at the right time, she had a harder time proving there was an error worth correcting. Ultimately, both of Katherine's arguments were denied, and the court decided to uphold her convictions and sentences.

Continue ReadingF-2018-202

F-2018-83

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-83, the appellant appealed his conviction for terminating his participation in a drug court program. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of the appellant's participation in the Kay County Drug Court Program. One judge dissented. The case began with the appellant being charged with domestic abuse, followed by several other charges which led to his participation in the drug court program. He had previous sentences but entered a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid immediate incarceration if he completed the program successfully. However, after multiple instances of non-compliance, the state requested to terminate him from the program. During a hearing, the judge evaluated whether the appellant had violated the terms of his performance contract in the drug court. The judge determined that he had. The appellant argued that the judge should have given him more chances to comply with the rules of the program, but the judge concluded that the appellant's actions warranted termination. The court ultimately agreed with the judge's decision, stating that he had not abused his discretion in terminating the appellant’s participation in the drug court program. The termination was deemed appropriate given the appellant's repeated violations.

Continue ReadingF-2018-83

F-2017-1259

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1259, Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the termination of Davis from the Drug Court program and upheld his sentencing. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1259

F-2018-145

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-145, Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his termination from the Drug Court program. One judge dissented. On June 23, 2015, Davis pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine. He was given a chance to avoid prison by being put on probation for five years. However, in December 2016, the state said Davis was not following the rules of his probation, leading to his case being taken to Drug Court in March 2017. Drug Court was meant to help him, but it also had strict rules he had to follow. If he completed the program successfully, he could avoid serious penalties. In January 2018, the state said Davis had broken the rules of the Drug Court and asked to have him removed from the program. After a hearing, the judge agreed, and Davis was taken out of Drug Court. Davis appealed this decision, saying the state did not prove he should be terminated and that his mental health issues were not considered. However, the court found no evidence that further sanctions would have helped him follow the rules. Throughout his time in Drug Court, he repeatedly missed appointments and failed to participate, which meant he was not eligible for further leniency. On the issue of his mental health, Davis did not present any evidence in court to explain how his mental health affected his ability to comply with the Drug Court program. Therefore, the court did not find this argument convincing. Ultimately, the court decided that the judge did not make a mistake in removing Davis from Drug Court, and his appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2018-145

M-2017-137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2017-137, Jerrad Sterling Nunamaker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding in excess of the lawful limit. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Nunamaker's fine for speeding to $20.00 and vacated the victim compensation assessment for that offense. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingM-2017-137

S-2015-723

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-723, Alexander appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and public intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order that sustained Alexander's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. The case started when a highway patrol officer saw two vehicles on the side of the road, one of which looked disabled. Instead of checking on the disabled vehicle, the officer decided to pull over a maroon car that was leaving the scene because it had a cracked windshield. Alexander was in the front passenger seat of the maroon car. When the officer asked for identification, Alexander admitted he did not have any. The officer said he would check Alexander's information in his cruiser for safety reasons. While talking to Alexander in the cruiser, the officer noticed he smelled alcohol on him and saw signs of slurred speech and slow movements. The officer found out that Alexander had an outstanding warrant and arrested him. Initially, there were inconsistencies in the officer's story about what happened during the stop. He claimed the smell of alcohol was evident when Alexander exited the car, but later changed his answers under questioning. During the hearing about Alexander's motion to suppress the evidence, the officer's actions came under scrutiny. The state argued that the stop was justified, and that finding the warrant should allow the evidence collected to be used. However, the district court felt the officer's actions were not good faith mistakes but rather improper. The officer had handcuffed Alexander and questioned him without informing him of his rights, which the court deemed as a significant violation of Alexander's rights. The higher court found the district court had properly assessed the facts and ruled in favor of Alexander. They determined that the illegal stop and the officer's methods were serious enough to dismiss the evidence gathered after the stop. Thus, the verdict of the trial court to suppress evidence and dismiss the case was upheld.

Continue ReadingS-2015-723

F-2014-46

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-46, Bradley appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine base) in the county jail. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the district court but modified Bradley's sentence from thirty years to twenty years. One judge dissented. Bradley was found guilty by a jury in Garvin County. The jury decided his punishment would be thirty years in prison because he had previously committed felonies. The judge in his case sentenced him accordingly and this new sentence would be served at the same time as sentences from other cases he had. Bradley raised several issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the district court should have allowed him more time to prepare for his trial, but the court did not agree. They believed he did not meet the requirements needed for a continuance. Second, he wanted a new trial because of new evidence, but the court found that the evidence wouldn’t change the trial's outcome. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him as much as they should have. However, the court found that he could not show how this lack of assistance changed the trial result. Additionally, he argued that the state did not share important information before the trial, but the court ruled that the information was not crucial. Bradley was concerned about comments made by the prosecutor regarding his right to remain silent. The court found no serious mistakes in this regard. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were also rejected since the comments made were considered harmless in the context of the trial. One key issue was about Bradley's past felony convictions. The state had shown more convictions than were necessary, which the court admitted was a mistake. The court concluded that the jury might have been influenced by the extra information about Bradley's past and decided to lessen his sentence to twenty years, believing this was a fair correction. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, indicating they found no major errors in the trial process that would affect fairness, except for the over-exposure to extraneous felony convictions which led to a reduced sentence. The dissenting judge argued that the error did not greatly affect Bradley's rights and believed the original thirty-year sentence was appropriate.

Continue ReadingF-2014-46

F-2013-788

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-788, Travis Lenard Mikado appealed his conviction for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance for both Marijuana and Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for the misdemeanor Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance while affirming the convictions for Attempting to Elude a Police Officer and the felony possession of Methamphetamine. One judge dissented. The case began when two police officers saw Mikado driving erratically, crossing the centerline. They activated their lights and followed him into a parking lot. Instead of stopping, Mikado accelerated, jumped the curb, and took off down the street, leading the officers on a high-speed chase. The pursuit ended when Mikado lost control of his car, which flipped multiple times. He was thrown from the vehicle but was conscious when officers reached him. A search revealed he had Methamphetamine and Marijuana in his pockets. Mikado challenged his convictions for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, claiming they violated laws against multiple punishments. However, he hadn’t raised this challenge before the trial, so the court evaluated it for plain error, which occurs when there is an obvious mistake that impacts the fairness of the trial. The court found that Mikado's two drug possessions were part of a single act since both drugs were found in one location. The ruling referenced past decisions where individuals could not be punished more than once for the same offense if it was part of one action, as in Mikado’s case. The court decided that since the Methamphetamine and Marijuana were both in the same pocket, it counted as one act of possession. Therefore, the conviction for one of the drugs was reversed. In summary, the court affirmed most of Mikado’s convictions but recognized that he should not have been punished for both drugs separately, leading to a significant change in his sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2013-788

F-2013-812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-812, Alphie Phillip McKinney appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses, including Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some of his convictions but also reversed two of them. A dissenting opinion was provided on one of the points regarding multiple punishments. The case involved McKinney being found guilty by a jury of various drug crimes. The jury's recommended punishment included many years of imprisonment and fines. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. McKinney raised several arguments in his appeal, seeking to challenge the fairness of his trial and the legality of his sentences. One major point of contention was whether the prosecutor unfairly excluded certain jurors based on race, claiming violation of equal protection rights. The court decided that McKinney did not prove purposeful discrimination and upheld the decisions made by the trial court regarding jury selection. Another argument was about the prosecutor's questioning related to McKinney’s past drug possession case during the trial. The court found that since McKinney had already spoken about his past, the prosecutor's questions did not harm his case. McKinney’s attempt to argue that his multiple convictions for possession of different drugs should be treated as one was considered. The court found that having several drugs at once can still lead to multiple charges under the law. However, they also concluded that McKinney’s convictions for possession in some counts were in error because he could only be punished once for a single action of possession involving multiple drugs. The court further ruled on McKinney's claims that his punishments for different crimes related to the same act went against legal protections against being punished multiple times for the same behavior. The court agreed with some points raised by McKinney about this and decided to reverse two of his possession convictions. However, they maintained that his trafficking conviction and another possession charge did not violate those protections because they fell under different legal conditions. Lastly, McKinney argued that his attorney did not do a good job representing him during the trial. The court reviewed this claim but decided that he did not show that he had suffered any harm from his attorney’s actions and thus did not grant relief based on this argument. In summary, the judgments in Counts I, II, IV, and VI were upheld, while the judgments in Counts III and V were reversed and sent back with instructions to dismiss those charges. One judge agreed with most of the decision but disagreed on how some arguments about multiple punishments were handled. Another judge also showed support for the prosecution's handling of certain charges but felt differently regarding the evaluation of potential double punishments.

Continue ReadingF-2013-812

S-2013-718

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-718, Tutson and Heartfield appealed their conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana) With the Intent to Distribute and other related charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence, which means they agreed that the evidence should not be used against Tutson and Heartfield because the consent to search was not clearly given. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-718