Statutory Construction Archives

F-2018-243

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-243, Ivan Luna-Gonzales appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. The case involved a serious incident where Luna-Gonzales attacked the mother of his child with a two-by-four, causing her significant injuries that required medical treatment. After the attack, he attempted to escape but was later found by the police. At the trial, Luna-Gonzales denied the assault and tried to claim that the victim had hurt herself. However, the evidence presented showed otherwise. A central issue in the appeal was whether Luna-Gonzales should receive credit for the time he spent in jail while awaiting his trial. He argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving him this credit. The relevant law states that certain credits for time served apply but focus on time after sentencing—not while someone is waiting for their trial. The court explained that the statute referenced by Luna-Gonzales did not apply to the time he spent in jail before his judgment and sentence. Instead, it was meant to address the time inmates spend in jail after sentencing. The court emphasized that the trial judge has the discretion to decide on jail credit, which is not automatically given. In Luna-Gonzales’s case, the court found no fault with the trial court's decision. His longer time in jail was largely due to an immigration hold, which prevented his release. The court also noted that he did not cooperate with a required investigation before sentencing. Therefore, the court concluded that the trial court acted within its rights, and the appeal was denied. Ultimately, the judgment from the Payne County District Court was upheld, meaning Luna-Gonzales would serve his sentence without the additional jail credits he sought.

S-2015-771

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 8, 2018
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings.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.

C-2015-573

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 22, 2016
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-573, Jeremy Ross Wilson appealed his conviction for Escape from the Department of Corrections. In a published decision, the court decided to modify Wilson's sentence. One judge dissented. Jeremy Ross Wilson was an inmate who escaped from a work center. He was arrested later and faced charges for his escape. He pleaded guilty and was given a long sentence, but he later wanted to take back his guilty plea. His motion to do so was denied, and he appealed that decision. The case included a problem with how the state used Wilson's past felony convictions. The law says you cannot use the same prior convictions to charge someone with a crime and to make the punishment worse for that crime. The state did that with Wilson, using five of his past felonies to both charge him and to increase his punishment. Because of this, the court found that Wilson had been given a harsher sentence than what was allowed by law. The main question was whether Wilson had entered his guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. It was found that he had. However, the court also decided that the sentence needed to be corrected. Wilson's lawyer did not challenge the state's use of the prior felonies, which was seen as ineffective help. As a result, the court modified Wilson's sentence to a shorter term of seven years instead of fifteen. Wilson would also have to be supervised for a year once released and pay fines. The court affirmed the decision to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea but changed the length of his sentence.

M-2015-506

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 17, 2016
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2015-506, Bell appealed her conviction for Disorderly Conduct and Interfering or Obstructing by Disobeying a Lawful Command. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and instructed to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. Bell was arrested on September 21, 2014, after protesting against a Satanic Black Mass at the Oklahoma City Civic Center. She was initially charged with trespassing but this was changed to Disorderly Conduct and Interfering or Obstructing by Disobeying a Lawful Command. Bell had gone to the Civic Center to pray against the event and knelt to pray on public property. She refused to leave when asked by police officers and was arrested. During the trial, witnesses, including police officers, testified that she did not block any entrances, and the City could not prove that she had obstructed access as per the ordinance she was charged under. The court found there was not enough evidence to support the claims that Bell had violated the law concerning disorderly conduct and interfering with the police. The judge reviewing the case decided that Bell's actions, which were protected under the First Amendment, did not constitute criminal obstruction. Although there were differences in opinion among the judges, the majority felt there was a lack of legal basis for the charges.

S-2015-972

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 20, 2016
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.

M 2013-0073

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 10, 2014
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2013-0073, Fredrick Bruce Knutson appealed his conviction for planning and zoning violations. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Fredrick Bruce Knutson was given four tickets for having signs that were too big according to local rules. He was fined by a municipal court judge for breaking these rules. Knutson argued that the rules were confusing and unfair because they did not clearly explain that they applied to his property, which was used for agriculture, not residential purposes. He also felt there was not enough proof that he really broke the rules since his land was not residential. Knutson pointed out that the city should not have punished him because the signs he had were allowed on agricultural land and because the rules did not say what residential meant. The court decided that the signs were put up in an area that was agricultural and that Knutson should not have been found guilty. Therefore, the court reversed the decision and said Knutson should not be punished for the signs he displayed.

S-2013-140

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 20, 2014
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-140, Haley appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that dismissed the supplemental information, which had attempted to elevate Haley's charge to a felony. One justice dissented. The State of Oklahoma had originally charged Haley with unlawful possession of marijuana as a subsequent offense, which is a felony, due to his prior felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court held that Haley's previous conviction for a different drug offense could not be used to enhance his current charge for marijuana. The case focused on the wording in the law about how to classify repeat offenders. The law specifies that someone can be charged with a felony for a second or subsequent violation of marijuana possession only if their past violations were also under the same marijuana law. Since Haley's previous conviction was for a different substance, the court ruled that it could not be used to upgrade his current marijuana charge. The majority opinion held that the statute must be read as requiring a prior violation of the specific marijuana law to qualify for felony enhancement. The dissenting opinion argued that the law should consider any prior drug conviction to establish the felony status. The dissent believed the majority misinterpreted the intent of the law and that it could lead to confusion in future cases.

S-2013-413

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

S-2013-415

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 20, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-413 & 415, Mark Anthony Herfurth appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender and Sex Offender Living within 2000 feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Herfurth was taken to court because he was accused of not registering as a sex offender and for living too close to a school after he had been convicted of a crime related to indecent exposure. In his earlier conviction, he had agreed to register as a sex offender for a certain number of years. However, when laws changed in 2007, it meant that people in his situation could be assigned a risk level and have to register for longer. Herfurth argued that he shouldn't be held to the new law because he had already completed his requirements from his original plea. The judge agreed with him and dismissed the charges, saying that the laws could not be applied to him retroactively. The State of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision. They believed that the new law should apply to Herfurth since he was still required to register as a sex offender. They argued that laws are meant to protect the public, and because he was registering at the time of the new law's change, he should follow the new rules. However, upon review, the court decided that the lower court did not make a mistake. They concluded that the 2007 law was a significant change and should only apply going forward, not backward. The court also stated that applying the 2007 law to Herfurth after his original plea would have changed his obligations unfairly. Therefore, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges against Herfurth, stating that they have a duty to interpret laws as they were intended at the time of the original guilty plea. The dissenting judge felt differently, believing that the law should have applied to Herfurth based on the new requirements.

F-2012-08

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 2, 2013
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-08, Ralph T. Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree robbery, attempted rape, forcible sodomy, first-degree rape, and unlawful possession of a controlled drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence on Count I to ten years imprisonment and to remove post-imprisonment supervision from Counts III, IV, and V. One judge dissented. **Summary of the Case:** Ralph T. Smith, Jr. was found guilty of serious crimes against a 76-year-old woman, R.C., after they met at a casino. Smith initiated a friendly interaction with R.C., who ended up offering him a ride. However, he then assaulted her and committed various violent acts, including attempted rape, forcible sodomy, and robbery. The jury sentenced Smith to long prison terms for each conviction. **Key Facts:** - During a day at the casino, Smith befriended R.C. and, after some time, manipulated her into giving him a ride. - Smith then forcibly assaulted R.C. at her house and later at a motel. - After the incident, R.C. reported the crime to her family and the police. **Legal Issues:** 1. **Speedy Trial**: Smith argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated according to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The court reviewed the timeline of events and denied his claim, stating that the time delays were justified. 2. **Sentencing Instructions**: Smith contested that the jury was improperly instructed about the potential punishment. The court agreed there was an error and modified the sentences accordingly. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: He claimed that he did not get adequate legal representation, particularly related to the sentencing instructions. The court noted that this claim was valid but remedied through the sentence modifications. 4. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Smith argued that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were inappropriate. The court found the comments were not severe enough to undermine the fairness of the trial. 5. **Jurisdiction**: Smith questioned whether the court had jurisdiction over some charges since the crimes occurred in different counties. The court ruled that jurisdiction was proper because the kidnapping and subsequent crimes were closely connected. 6. **Pro Se Brief**: Smith attempted to submit additional complaints without sufficient support from his attorney. The court denied this attempt due to failure to follow proper procedures. In conclusion, while Smith's sentence modification was granted throughout the appeals process, the court maintained that he was rightly convicted and that the initial trial was fair despite some errors.

S-2011-0467

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 1, 2012
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-0467, a person appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm after a previous conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling which found that the application of a new law to this case was unconstitutional. One judge dissented. To explain further, the person involved, known as the appellee, was charged after a new law was enacted that changed the rules about possessing firearms for people with past convictions. Originally, under the law at the time the appellee completed his past sentence, he was allowed to possess a firearm. However, the law changed in 2010 to make it more difficult for people with certain convictions to have firearms, requiring them to wait ten years instead of just having their rights restored after finishing their sentence. The appeal began after a magistrate found that using the new law against the appellee was unfair because it changed the rules after he had already completed his legal obligations. The court needed to determine if this application of the law was considered an ex post facto law, which is illegal under the Constitution because it punishes someone for actions that were not against the law when they were done. The appellee had completed his deferred sentence successfully and had regained the right to possess a firearm. The court recognized that the law should not punish people for actions that were legal at the time they were done, and applying the new law to the appellee would violate this principle. Therefore, the decision from the lower court was upheld, meaning the appellee would not face penalties from the new law. The ruling confirmed that once someone has completed their deferred sentence, they should not have to follow new rules that were created after the fact regarding possession of firearms.

F-2004-649

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 9, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-649, Franklin Lee Gibbs, Jr. appealed his conviction for First-Degree Murder and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction due to an error in jury selection. Gibbs was only given five peremptory challenges instead of the nine he was supposed to have under the law. This was considered a violation of his due process rights, leading the court to order a new trial. Additionally, one judge dissented on some points, but the key reason for the reversal was the error in jury selection.

F-2000-386

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 7, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-386, Rodney Eugene Cheadle appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and several other charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction from First Degree Murder to Solicitation for Murder in the First Degree and changed his sentence from life without parole to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Rodney Eugene Cheadle was charged with many serious crimes, including selling drugs and murder. The case started when a woman named Donna Phillips was working with the police while she was arrested. She bought drugs from Cheadle, and police later got a search warrant for his house. When they searched it, they found drugs and guns. Cheadle was in jail when he told other inmates that he wanted to prevent Phillips from testifying against him. He even tried to get someone to kill her. Eventually, another inmate, Vance Foust, did kill Phillips. After the murder, a jail inmate told the police about Cheadle's plans. During the trial, the jury found Cheadle guilty on multiple counts, and he received heavy sentences. However, Cheadle appealed, claiming there wasn't enough evidence for some of the charges against him, especially for First Degree Murder. The court agreed with him, stating that while he did solicit someone to kill Phillips, the evidence did not show that it was in furtherance of his drug activities as required by law. Ultimately, the court agreed to change his First Degree Murder conviction to a lesser charge of Solicitation for Murder and reduced his sentence. It also reversed some of his other convictions due to double jeopardy issues. Therefore, while he was found guilty of many crimes, the court decided to modify his most serious conviction and sentence.

F 2000-292

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 24, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-292, Joe Stratmoen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug (Methamphetamine) and Possession of a Weapon While Committing a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified the sentence for the weapon charge. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Stratmoen was found guilty of having methamphetamine and a weapon during a felony. At his trial, he was sentenced to 30 years for the drug charge and 20 years for the weapon charge. He raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that the court did not correctly explain the state’s need to prove his past convictions. Second, he claimed the jury was misinformed about the punishment ranges for the second charge. Third, he said the jury was not correctly told about the punishments for the drug offense. The court looked carefully at all the evidence and arguments presented. They decided that the way the jury was instructed about the drug charges was correct. However, they agreed that the sentence for the weapon charge should be less severe based on their interpretations of the law, setting it to the minimum of two years instead of the original twenty. One judge disagreed with the decision to lessen the sentence for the weapon charge, feeling that the jury’s sentence should be upheld. The final conclusion was that while the main conviction was upheld, the penalty for possession of a weapon was reduced.