Probable Cause

S-2018-950

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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OF OKLAHOMA** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellant,** **V.** **JERRY LEE NILES, JR., Appellee.** **No. S-2018-950** **NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR - 4 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** The State of Oklahoma appeals from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

Continue ReadingS-2018-950

S-2018-6

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** Court Case No: S-2018-51 and S-2018-6 **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **SHELLEY MARIE BRADLEY,** Appellee. **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellant, **V.** **DYLAN THOMAS BRODIE,** Appellee. **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** 1. The State of Oklahoma, Appellant, appeals from an order affirming the ruling of the magistrate, sustaining the defendants' demurrers to evidence on Counts 1 and 2, and denying the State's request to amend the Informations, in Case Nos. CF-2017-445 and CF-2017-446 in the District Court of Wagoner County. **STATEMENT OF THE CASE** 2. Appellees, Shelley Marie Bradley and Dylan Thomas Brodie, were charged with intimidation of a witness and conspiracy to commit a felony. The magistrate sustained the demurrers to the evidence and denied amendments to include additional charges. 3. The matter was assigned to Judge Mark L. Dobbins as the reviewing judge, who affirmed the magistrate's ruling. 4. The State appealed; on August 9, 2018, this Court held oral arguments, after which the ruling was reversed. **SUMMARY OF FACTS** 5. The Appellees are related to Jacob Ode, charged with several offenses following a police pursuit. Hawkins, a relative of the Appellees, was a passenger and initially provided a statement implicating Ode. 6. Later, Hawkins was approached by the Appellees and persuaded to change her statement to indicate Ode was not the driver during the pursuit. 7. The magistrate found no evidence demonstrating that Hawkins was threatened or coerced into altering her testimony. **ANALYSIS** ### I. Intimidation of Witness 8. The State argued sufficient evidence existed for the charge of witness intimidation. However, the records demonstrated no evidence of Hawkins being prevented from testifying or coerced through force or fear. 9. The judges did not err in finding there wasn’t enough evidence to support the claim of intimidation. ### II. Conspiracy to Commit Intimidation 10. The State similarly could not provide sufficient evidence to show any conspiracy between the Appellees to intimidate Hawkins, as no threats or coercion were substantiated. ### III. Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation 11. The State argued it presented sufficient evidence to show a conspiracy to commit perjury by subornation. The appellate judges found sufficient cause to remand for the trial on this charge. ### IV. False Preparation of Exhibits 12. The evidence presented indicated that Hawkins’ second statement was prepared under the Appellees' guidance with the intent to be submitted as evidence. 13. The failure to include this evidence as a charge of False Preparation of Exhibits was deemed an error by the appellate judges. **DECISION** 14. The order of the District Court sustaining the magistrate's decisions is REVERSED. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to proceed to trial for the charges of Conspiracy to Commit Perjury by Subornation and False Preparation of Exhibits. **APPEARANCES** - **For the State:** Douglas G. Dry, Assistant District Attorney - **For the Appellees:** Michon Hastings Hughes & Clinton C. Hastings, Attorneys at Law **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** - LUMPKIN, P.J., LEWIS, V.P.J., HUDSON, J., and KUEHN, J., concur. --- **[Download PDF of Full Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-6_1734333945.pdf)**

Continue ReadingS-2018-6

S-2015-771

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2015-771

F-2016-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DERRECK RYAN GRAY,** Appellant, Case No. F-2016-1015 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Derreck Ryan Gray was convicted by jury of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) With Intent to Distribute (Count I) and Obstructing an Officer (Count II) in the District Court of Payne County. The jury recommended a sentence of twenty-four years for Count I and one year in jail with a $500 fine for Count II. The trial court sentenced Appellant according to the jury's recommendations, though it reduced the fine in Count II to $100. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant appeals, raising one proposition of error: 1. The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during what he contends was an illegal seizure. After reviewing the details of the case and the arguments presented, we conclude that no relief is warranted. During the traffic stop for a violation, neither the driver nor Appellant had valid driver's licenses. Consequently, the vehicle was to be impounded. Upon concluding the traffic stop, Appellant was free to leave, but officers instructed him to exit the vehicle to inventory it. As he did, Officer Cluck observed a plastic bag drop to the floor. When instructed not to touch it, Appellant ignored this and attempted to flee with the bag. Officer Cluck arrested Appellant for Obstructing an Officer, which permitted retrieval of the bag. Subsequent analysis of the bag revealed it contained methamphetamine. Appellant asserts that the seizure of the bag was improper; however, he does not dispute the legality of the traffic stop or the imminent impoundment. His attempt to flee with the bag constituted obstruction, providing probable cause for his arrest. This established legal basis nullifies his argument against the seizure of the evidence. In reviewing the trial court's actions regarding the suppression motion, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court's denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed, as Appellant's conduct provided justification for his detention and the subsequent evidence seizure, which does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** Royce Hobbs, Stillwater, OK, Counsel for Defendant **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** Robert W. Jackson, Norman, OK, Counsel for Appellant Laura Austin Thomas, Payne County District Attorney **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, P.J. **Concur:** LEWIS, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; KUEHN, J.; ROWLAND, J.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1015

S-2016-163

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-163, Stites appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse and Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed one count of Child Sexual Abuse and amended another to Lewd Molestation. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2016-163

S-2016-169

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingS-2016-169

S-2016-95

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-95, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for acquiring proceeds from illegal drug activity. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the district court that granted a Motion to Suppress evidence. One judge dissented. The case began in Sequoyah County when the driver of a vehicle was stopped for speeding. During the traffic stop, the trooper checked the driver's license and vehicle documents, and after issuing a warning, asked if he could use a drug-sniffing dog on the vehicle. The driver said no and wanted to leave. Despite this, the trooper asked him to get back into the patrol car and moved ahead with deploying the dog. The drug dog found a large amount of cash hidden in the spare tire of the truck. The State appealed the decision saying that the trooper had enough reason to keep the driver there for the drug dog search. The trooper noted that the driver was very nervous, the truck was unusually clean with a strong air freshener scent, and the driver had two cell phones. When a police officer stops someone, they can only keep them there for as long as needed to handle the reason for the stop, which in this case was the speeding. The officer can extend the stop if they have reasonable suspicion that something illegal is happening, but they need solid reasons to do this. In reviewing the trooper's actions, the court looked at the overall situation, including the video from the stop, and decided that the trooper did not have enough reasonable suspicion to keep the driver longer. The factors the trooper mentioned did not add up to a valid reason for the ongoing detention. As a result, the court upheld the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence obtained from the drug dog search, meaning the cash found could not be used against the driver in court. The State’s appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingS-2016-95

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-2014-759

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingS-2014-759

S-2013-509

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-509, Julio Juarez Ramos and Isidro Juarez Ramos appealed their convictions for first-degree murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling granting the Appellees immunity from prosecution under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law. #1 dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-509

S-2013-510

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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

Continue ReadingS-2013-510

S-2014-564

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-564, Christopher Knight appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence found during the search. One judge dissented. Christopher Knight was walking late at night in Ardmore, Oklahoma, when an officer saw him and decided to approach him. The officer, who was still in training, had been told by his supervisor to check on people out late at night. The officer stopped in front of Knight and asked if he could talk to him. Knight agreed to talk, and during their conversation, the officer asked if he could search Knight, to which Knight also said yes. However, the officer later admitted that Knight was not doing anything wrong at the time and there was no good reason for stopping him. Knight argued that the way the officer stopped him made him feel like he had to talk and that he was not free to leave. The court needed to decide if Knight was stopped in a way that violated his rights. The court found that it was not clear that Knight's encounter with the officer was truly voluntary. The State needed to show that Knight felt free to walk away, but there was no evidence that he could easily avoid the officer. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial judge that the evidence collected during the search should not be used against Knight. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling to suppress the evidence and ordered the case to go back for more proceedings, as long as they followed the decision made. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the officer should not be blamed for simply talking to Knight.

Continue ReadingS-2014-564

S-2013-696

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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

Continue ReadingS-2013-696

S-2013-694

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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

Continue ReadingS-2013-694

S-2013-695

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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

Continue ReadingS-2013-695

S-2013-103

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingS-2013-103

S-2013-127

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingS-2013-127

F-2012-172

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-172, Mark Wallace Williams appealed his conviction for attempted burglary in the first degree, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of material with intent to manufacture, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentence for attempted burglary from 14 years to 10 years. One judge dissented. Williams was arrested after being found in a vehicle at the scene of a reported burglary. He argued that his arrest was illegal and the evidence obtained should not have been used against him. The court disagreed, ruling that there was enough probable cause for the arrest. Williams also challenged the searches of his car, particularly the trunk, claiming they were unlawful. The court recognized some issues with the search but determined that the evidence could still be used because the police would have found it during an inventory search of the car. During the trial, Williams made statements to police which he later contested as improperly admitted. The court found any potential error harmless given the other evidence presented against him. Further, Williams argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support his conviction for attempted burglary, but the court found that evidence, including his actions and items found with him, was sufficient for a jury to reasonably conclude he was attempting to commit a crime. He also claimed that jury instructions were mistaken about his prior convictions, but the court held that these errors did not harm his case significantly. Williams raised concerns about his competence to stand trial, and the court reviewed multiple evaluations of his mental health history. Ultimately, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that he was competent to stand trial. Additionally, he argued that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he could not have waived his right to counsel due to incompetence. The court found no merit to this assertion, concluding that Williams did indeed understand and make a valid choice to represent himself. Overall, the court affirmed most of Williams' convictions, modified one sentence, denied a request to supplement the record, and found no grounds for a new trial or hearing on these matters.

Continue ReadingF-2012-172

C-2012-277

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2012-277, Crystal Lynn Erb appealed her conviction for Child Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to remand the case for the appointment of new, conflict-free counsel to represent Erb in her application to withdraw her Alford plea. One judge dissented. Crystal Lynn Erb was charged with child neglect after she was accused of not taking care of her infant, Tamberlyn Wheeler. The events that led to the charges happened between January 2008 and April 2008, but the official charges were not filed until January 2011. This was a delay of almost 2 years and 9 months. A preliminary hearing took place in May 2011, and Erb was bound over on the charge. On October 12, 2011, she entered an Alford plea, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted a plea deal because it was in her best interest. She agreed to testify against her co-defendant, Samuel Wheeler, and was released on her own recognizance. During the sentencing hearing in February 2012, Erb was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Shortly after, her lawyer filed a motion for her to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that Erb was innocent. However, during the hearing for this motion, the lawyer did not present any strong arguments or evidence for why Erb should be allowed to withdraw her plea. The judge denied the motion. Erb later filed an appeal and sought a review by the court, raising several claims for why her plea should be re-evaluated. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or intelligently and that she did not receive good legal help due to a conflict with her attorney. The court noted that the issues Erb raised in her appeal were not dealt with properly by her lawyer when they tried to withdraw her plea. The court expressed concerns about whether her plea was voluntary and if her attorney did not provide effective assistance. Since the same lawyer represented Erb during both the plea and the motion process, the court decided that Erb needed a new attorney who could help her without any conflicts of interest. As a result, the court ordered that the case be sent back to appoint a new lawyer for Erb so that they could help her file a new application to withdraw her Alford plea and represent her in any related hearings. The decision was made to ensure that Erb received fair and effective legal help.

Continue ReadingC-2012-277

S-2011-1115

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-1115, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction regarding defendants accused of conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided that the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was not enough to support a conspiracy charge against the defendants. The ruling of the lower court was affirmed, and one judge dissented. In this case, the defendants were accused of agreeing to a bribe related to an election. The State claimed that one defendant offered the other a job to persuade her not to run for a Senate seat. The court looked carefully at the evidence and found that there was not enough proof to show that the defendants had a plan to commit a crime together. Thus, their appeal was rejected, and the original decision was upheld, concluding that the charge of conspiracy was not valid based on the information provided.

Continue ReadingS-2011-1115

S-2012-166

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-166, Moises Gonzales-Tello appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Heroin. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling to suppress evidence gathered during a traffic stop. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma appealed a decision made by the district court. This decision was based on a traffic stop where law enforcement officers discovered evidence of a crime, but the evidence was later deemed inadmissible. The district court ruled that the stop had taken too long and that the officer did not have a proper reason to keep the suspect detained after the initial reason for the stop was completed. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed several unusual things that made him suspicious. He called for a drug-sniffing dog to come to the scene. Even though the officer asked for permission to search the car, he did not actually let the suspect leave and did not return his driver's license or paperwork. The dog arrived about 30 minutes after the stop began, but did not find anything. After the dog didn't indicate any signs of drugs, the officer conducted his own search and found a significant amount of heroin. The court looked closely at whether the officer had enough reason to continue holding the suspect after the initial reason for the traffic stop was accomplished. While the State argued that the officer's actions were justified, the court explained that to search a car without a warrant, an officer must have either permission from the owner or a strong reason to believe the car contains evidence of a crime. In this case, the dog did not find anything and the officer did not get enough proof that would justify a search. If there had been clear consent from the suspect for the search, the situation might have been different. However, the way the officer asked for consent made it seem as if the suspect did not truly have a choice. When the court reviewed the case, they found that the district court made a reasonable decision in ruling that the initial detention was too long and that the search was not justified. The State also argued against using the Exclusionary Rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The court did not agree with the State on this argument, as they did not provide enough support for their claim. In summary, the court decided to maintain the district court's order to suppress the evidence found during the traffic stop, agreeing that the officers did not follow the correct procedures.

Continue ReadingS-2012-166

C-2011-945

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2011-945, Hall appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny Hall's petition to withdraw his plea but reversed the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2011-945

S-2012-214

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-214, Nhanh Van Dang and Nhi Thi Nguyen appealed their conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence, meaning the charges against them could not proceed. One judge dissented. The case began when law enforcement stopped the vehicle driving by Dang and Nguyen. They were suspected of breaking traffic laws, but the court found that the officers did not have enough reason to pull them over. The original judge ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the stop, which led to the suppression of the evidence gathered afterward. The state tried to argue that the stop was justified because of alleged traffic violations. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision, saying the evidence did not clearly show that the officers had a good reason to stop the vehicle. Since the stop was deemed improper, the gathered evidence could not be used in court against Dang and Nguyen. Therefore, the appeals court confirmed that the right decision was made by the lower court in suppressing the evidence, reinforcing the idea that fair legal procedures must be followed.

Continue ReadingS-2012-214

S-2011-0801

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2011-0801, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Wendel Hughes for preventing a witness from giving testimony, use of a firearm while committing a felony, and false reports of crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that dismissed the charges of preventing a witness from testifying and use of a firearm while committing a felony. One judge dissented. Wendel Hughes was charged in Sequoyah County with three serious offenses. During the preliminary hearing, the magistrate determined that there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges of preventing a witness from giving testimony or using a firearm during a felony. The State thought this decision was wrong and appealed the ruling. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to see if there is likely enough evidence to believe that a crime happened and that the accused person committed it. The court reviewed the case to check if the lower court made a mistake in its decision. They found that the evidence the State provided was not strong enough to show that Hughes committed the crimes. So, they decided not to change the ruling of the lower court. The court affirmed the dismissal of the two counts against Hughes, meaning they agreed with the previous decision. The judge who disagreed with the majority opinion thought that the evidence should have been enough to go to trial. He argued that the evidence suggested Hughes had intentions to stop the witness from providing testimony and that a jury should decide if he was guilty based on all the facts of the case. In summary, Hughes's charges were dismissed because the courts did not find enough evidence of his wrongdoing based on the information presented during the preliminary hearing.

Continue ReadingS-2011-0801