Reckless Driving

M-2005-375

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2005-375, the appellant appealed his conviction for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Failing to Register a Vehicle, and Failing to Carry Security Verification. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions for Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and Failing to Carry valid Security Verification and remand for a new trial. The conviction for Failing to Register a Vehicle was also reversed with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involves an appellant who was convicted after a jury trial in Love County. He was sentenced to a total of over two years in prison and ordered to pay restitution for damages. Appellant raised several issues on appeal, primarily arguing that the trial court made mistakes during the trial, including allowing improper questioning about a previously withdrawn guilty plea and imposing an illegal punishment. The trial started with the appellant being arrested for multiple offenses related to driving and vehicle registration. At first, he agreed to plead guilty but decided to withdraw that plea after getting legal help. During his trial, the prosecution wrongly questioned him about that guilty plea, which was acknowledged as an error by both sides. This error was seen as significant enough to potentially affect the jury's decision, therefore, the court believed a new trial was necessary. For the offense of Failing to Register a Vehicle, the court found that the punishment given was not within the law's limits. Furthermore, the state agreed that the appellant should not have been charged under Oklahoma law since the vehicle was bought out of state. Thus, the conviction for this offense was also overturned. In conclusion, the court acted to protect the fairness of the trial process by ordering new trials for some convictions and dismissing others. The decision addressed important legal standards and ensured that justice was served correctly.

Continue ReadingM-2005-375

M 2005-0332

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the conviction and modify it to a lesser charge of speeding. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant received a speeding ticket on September 17, 2003, for going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. During the trial, the judge found the appellant guilty of reckless driving and sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with 30 days to serve and the rest suspended, along with a $300 fine. The appellant did not appeal in time but was allowed to do so later. During the appeal, the appellant claimed two main points. First, he argued that his speeding did not meet the level of culpable negligence needed for reckless driving. The law requires more than just speeding to prove reckless driving. The state argued that speeding around other cars during the day showed enough negligence to support the conviction. Second, the appellant contended that he was not allowed to cross-examine a witness after the judge asked a question about intersecting roads. The judge’s questioning provided new information that had not been discussed before. The court pointed out that the appellant had the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them, which was denied in this case. Ultimately, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support the reckless driving charge and modified the conviction to speeding instead. The court agreed to vacate the reckless driving sentence and sent the case back to the district court for proper sentencing on the speeding charge.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0332

M 2005-0332

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction from reckless driving to speeding due to insufficient evidence of reckless behavior. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant received a traffic ticket for speeding, going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. The traffic stop occurred on a dry day with moderate traffic. The officer who stopped the appellant said he did not see anything dangerous other than the speeding. The appellant was guilty of speeding, but the state argued that speeding was enough to prove reckless driving. For reckless driving, the law requires showing that someone acted with culpable negligence, which means the behavior must be more than just speeding. The court cited past cases that supported this idea, indicating that simply going over the speed limit is not automatically reckless driving. The state claimed that because there were other cars on the road and the appellant passed an intersection, that made the speeding reckless. However, the appellant pointed out that while he was speeding, he did not engage in reckless behavior that would endanger others. Another issue in the case was that the trial judge asked a witness about intersections but did not allow the appellant to ask the witness questions afterward. The court found that this was a mistake because everyone has the right to question witnesses against them. In the end, the court decided that while the appellant was guilty of speeding, there wasn't enough evidence for the reckless driving charge. They changed the conviction to speeding, removed the reckless driving sentence, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide the proper punishment for speeding.

Continue ReadingM 2005-0332

C-2004-598

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-598, Seno McKinley Speed appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including possession of a controlled substance, eluding a police officer, and resisting an officer, among others. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Speed’s request to withdraw his guilty pleas for the misdemeanor charges and allowed him to proceed to trial. The court agreed there was no factual basis for those misdemeanor pleas, which led to the decision. There was no dissent in this case.

Continue ReadingC-2004-598