Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana Archives

C-2008-593

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:March 2, 2009
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2008-593, Alan Daniels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. On July 14, 2005, Daniels pled guilty to growing a small marijuana plant. The judge deferred sentencing for five years, making him serve ten days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. Later, the State found that he violated the terms of his plea deal, and on February 14, 2006, the judge sentenced him to life in prison. Over the next two years, Daniels tried to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal the decision. Daniels' plea was reviewed on June 12, 2008, but the district court upheld the plea and denied his request. Daniels then appealed to a higher court, asking to withdraw his plea and have a new trial, or to change his sentence. The issues raised included whether the evidence showed he violated probation, if his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and if his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the evidence was enough to prove that Daniels broke the rules set during his probation. The court also found that Daniels's guilty plea was made knowingly. However, the court believed that a life sentence for growing a small marijuana plant was too extreme. They decided to change his sentence to five years in prison instead.

F-2003-1241

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:December 23, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1241, Eddie Don Milligan appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Milligan's conviction. One judge dissented. Milligan was found guilty by a jury of growing marijuana on his property and was given a six-year prison sentence. He appealed the decision, stating that there were multiple mistakes in his trial, including the improper use of evidence obtained from a search of his property that he believed violated his rights to privacy. The case started when agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics were flying in a helicopter looking for marijuana. Due to engine trouble, they flew over Milligan's property and thought they saw marijuana plants. They did not check for sure but recorded the spot and returned the next day, where they saw only corn. They then obtained a search warrant and found some marijuana leaves near a burn pile, but nothing else that indicated marijuana was being grown. Milligan argued that the helicopter flight over his property violated his right to privacy. The court agreed, saying he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his yard. The agents hadn't done enough to confirm they saw marijuana before getting the warrant. In the end, the court ruled that Miligan's rights were violated and reversed his conviction, sending the case back for further proceedings. The other arguments he made about his trial mistakes were not addressed since this decision resolved the main issue.

F-2000-1078

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:March 1, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-1078, Samuel Leroy Muzny appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case. One judge dissented. Muzny was charged and tried in the District Court of Lincoln County. He was found guilty of growing marijuana on his own property and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, with eight years suspended, and a $5000 fine. Muzny raised several arguments in his appeal. He stated that agents from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics should not have entered his fenced property without a warrant to check for marijuana plants. He claimed this violated his right to privacy and was against both state and federal laws. The court examined these arguments closely. The majority found that because the agents entered a posted and fenced area without a warrant, this violated Muzny’s constitutional rights. They referred to a previous case to support their conclusion that the warrants are necessary for such searches. Therefore, they reversed Muzny's conviction. One judge disagreed with this decision and wrote a dissent. He believed the court was changing established laws on search and seizure, which could create confusion for future cases. He argued that the law should remain consistent to ensure fairness and clarity in the legal system. In summary, the court’s decision led to Muzny’s conviction being overturned due to the lack of a warrant for the search, while a dissenting judge believed this ruling undermined the established legal framework.