Reserved Question of Law

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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal.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

S-2016-1126

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-1126, David James Miller appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to dismiss the appeal. No one dissented. In this case, the State charged the defendant with a serious crime after an incident where he allegedly shot someone. The defendant argued that he acted in self-defense. He wanted the court to believe that he should not be punished for what he did because he was protecting himself. During a hearing, the defendant provided his explanation, while the State presented evidence to counter his claims. The court listened to both sides and eventually agreed with the defendant, deciding that he was immune from prosecution based on self-defense laws. This ruling meant that the case against him could not continue. The State did not agree with the court's decision and decided to appeal. They believed that the judge did not consider their evidence properly and that the ruling was unfair. However, when the appeal was reviewed, the court found that the State did not show clear legal reasons for their complaint. The judges noted that the lower court had allowed the State to present their evidence and arguments. In the end, the court concluded that this was not a matter they could reconsider as it had to do with factual evidence rather than legal issues. Because of this, the court dismissed the State's appeal.

Continue ReadingS-2016-1126

S-2015-672

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA Case No. S-2015-672, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the State's appeal and deny the petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus. The dissenting opinion was noted by one member of the court. This case involves Jeremy Scott Niederbuhl, who was charged on December 13, 2013, for trying to break into a home. After attending a barbeque at the homeowner's house, Niederbuhl returned hours later and attempted to enter the home through a door and a window. The homeowner, Mr. Scott, fired shots, hitting Niederbuhl, who then went to the hospital and remained there for two weeks. The legal process began in 2013 when the charges were filed. However, Niederbuhl only found out about the charges in late 2014 when he turned himself in for a different issue. His lawyer argued that there were important text messages between Niederbuhl and the homeowner that could help his case, but the State did not provide this evidence, leading to a significant delay in the trial. On July 17, 2015, the trial court dismissed the case, agreeing that Niederbuhl's rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated due to the State’s lack of action and bad faith. The court believed the State did not follow its obligation to turn over evidence, which was a significant factor in its decision to dismiss the case. The State disagreed with the trial court's dismissal and filed a motion to reconsider the ruling. However, the trial court decided it couldn’t consider this motion because the State already filed an appeal. The State then appealed the dismissal, claiming the trial court made errors in its ruling and that the dismissal did not follow legal procedures. However, the court decided that the State’s appeal was not valid since it did not follow specific laws regarding when the State can appeal a dismissal. In addition to the appeal, the State also filed a petition requesting an order based on their belief that the trial court made mistakes in its rulings. However, the appellate court concluded that the State did not meet the requirements to get an extraordinary writ, which is a special type of order. In summary, the appellate court dismissed the State's appeal and told the case to go back to the District Court for further actions. The petition for the extraordinary writ was also denied, indicating that the appellate court found no legal basis for the State’s claims.

Continue ReadingS-2015-672

S-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-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-2014-786

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-786, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Douglas Raymond Norwood for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the felony charge that the State had brought against him. The court also accepted Norwood's guilty plea for the misdemeanor charge. One judge dissented. The case began when the State charged Norwood with felony possession of marijuana because he had three prior convictions related to drug offenses. Norwood argued that because his past convictions were not from the specific law under which the State was trying to charge him this time, his current charge should be treated as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The trial court agreed with Norwood and dismissed the felony charge, allowing him to plead guilty to the lesser charge. The State then appealed, but the court explained that its ability to appeal was limited by law. They could only do so in specific situations, one of which is if there has been a dismissal that prevents further prosecution. The court indicated that the trial court had correctly dismissed the felony charge because the law only allows such enhancements to felony charges when a person has previous convictions specifically under that law. The court referred to a similar earlier case, showing that they had already decided against the State in a comparable situation. They reaffirmed that in order to enhance a charge to a felony, the previous convictions must originate from the same specific law, which was not the case for Norwood. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the lower court to dismiss the felony charge and accepted Norwood's guilty plea for misdemeanor possession. Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the original ruling was confirmed, with one judge explaining why he disagreed with the outcome.

Continue ReadingS-2014-786

S-2013-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-315, David Johns appealed his conviction for larceny. In a published decision, the court decided that a trial court cannot modify the terms and conditions of a negotiated deferred judgment without the consent of the State. The case involved Johns, who had entered a guilty plea and was placed on deferred judgment for five years. He filed a motion to change the terms of his deferred judgment, and the trial court agreed to shorten it and dismiss the case, which the State appealed. The court explained that under current laws, the trial court does not have the authority to shorten the deferment period once a plea agreement is in place. This ruling was made to prevent issues that could discourage prosecutors from agreeing to deferred judgments in the future. The court emphasized that any changes to the terms of a deferred judgment must follow statutory guidelines, and the trial court may only act when the conditions are met at the end of the deferment period. It upheld the idea that modifying an agreement without proper authority is not allowed. Therefore, the original decision to cut Johns' probation short was not supported by the law. The court's answer to the reserved question of law confirmed that the trial court was not authorized to cut short the period of deferment after the terms of the plea agreement had been established. #n dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2013-315

S-2009-944

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

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

Continue ReadingS-2009-944

S-2009-1176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-1176, Don Wayne Townsend Jr. appealed his conviction for Omission to Provide for Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case. No one dissented. In this case, Townsend was initially charged with not providing for his child, which was a violation of the law. However, after the state presented its evidence, the trial judge decided that the evidence was not strong enough to continue the trial. The state then sought to appeal this decision, asking if the judge made a mistake in dismissing the case. The court looked carefully at the situation and found that the state's question was not really about the law, but rather about whether the evidence was enough to prove Townsend's guilt. The court explained that proving someone is guilty requires showing they willfully did not support their child for a long time. They also stated that it must be shown that the person had a legal obligation to pay child support. Ultimately, the court agreed with the trial judge's decision and found no error in dismissing the case against Townsend. This means that the matter was closed and he could not be tried again for this charge. The court's decision was recorded, and they indicated that the dismissal order would stand.

Continue ReadingS-2009-1176