Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Cocaine Case Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale has nearly two decades of experience. His practice focuses on criminal defense.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with delivery of cocaine, receiving or acquiring proceeds derived from the illegal activity and other crimes. The jury found him guilty 15 to defend you and your friend will defendant this is with delivery of controlled drug and receiving requiring proceeds from the must be the this is because the woman prohibits multiple punishments for single.

The jury found him guilty and sentenced him 15 years in prison. On appeal, the defendant argued that the appellate court should reverse his conviction. He argued that convictions for unlawful delivery of a controlled drug and receiving proceeds derived from it illegal drug activity are not allowed. This is because Oklahoma prohibits multiple punishments for single acts.

The defendant sold a single rock of cocaine for $100. Prosecutors charged him with two separate crimes. The first was delivery of cocaine. The second was receiving proceeds derived from a drug transaction. Oklahoma prohibits punishment of a single act under more than one provision. The intent is that the defendant received only one punishment for one offense. Even though the elements of each of those crimes differ, the defendant committed a single criminal act of selling a rock of cocaine. This was incident to one objective. The language of the statute rejected the possibility of additional criminal charges for violation of both acts.

In another case, defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus. The defendant entered the bar and ordered a beer from the waitress. He left the bar a few months later returned. Soon after, two men entered the bar. One went behind the bar and stabbed the waitress. The waitress fell down in the assailant took money from the register. At that time, the defendant came around the park put a knife to the waitress throat. The other man tied and gagged her. Police caught them later that day.

A jury convicted the defendant of her with a dangerous weapon and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court and pose a consecutive sentence of 25 years for the robbery 100 years for the salt battery charge. The defendant followed direct appeal, raising numerous constitutional procedure errors. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The defendant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court. The judge denied the writ.

On appeal, the defendant asserted that convictions for robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault battery with a deadly weapon violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Double Jeopardy Clause consists of three separate constitutional protections, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Protects against the second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. Additionally, it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. Lastly, it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. The third protections at issue in this case.

This protection is limited to ensuring that the sentence discretion the courts is confined to the limits established by the legislature. The legislature is vested with the substantial that the power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments. Therefore, when the course of criminal conduct constitutes a violation of two statutory provisions, the test to determine whether the punishment or multiple is one of legislative intent. Where there is no clear legislative intent, courts must apply tests concerning where the same act or transaction constitutional violation two distinct statutory provisions. The test to be applied is to determine whether there are two offenses are only one. The courts will look at whether each provision requires proof of the fact that the other does not.

Under the standard, the defendant’s double jeopardy argument fails because under Oklahoma law, the elements for robbery differ from those for assault and battery. However, this argument overlooks statute that provides an act or omission which is made possible in different ways by different provisions of this code may be punished and either of those provisions. However, no case can be punished under more than one. Additionally, an acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars the prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.

Statutory double jeopardy provision indicates legislative intent. Therefore the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had to consider whether the federal Constitution Double Jeopardy Clause applies. In determining whether a state legislature intended to prescribe cumulative punishments for a single act the court will look to legislative intent. A federal court will defer staying court determination of separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes. If the highest a court determines that the legislative intent to punish separate offenses cumulatively, a federal habeas corpus court must defer to that conclusion. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest court on criminal matters in Oklahoma.

In this instance, the defendant asserted that the appellate court cannot rely on the court criminal appeals decision because it was a summary disposition. Previous case law the question whether procedural default applies the habeas corpus petition. Supreme Court held that a federal habeas corpus court would have to look through the state appellate courts summary denial of post-conviction relief to the lacerated opinion in a case in order to determine whether procedural default applied. The defendant argued that the federal court must expand case principle to look at whether other applicable reason decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeals applies.

If you’ve been charged with a crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale Law Office is free. You also get a free defense strategy plan document to take with you. Attorney Cale has been practicing for 19 years and focuses his practice on criminal defense. You should give him a call right away if you or someone you know has been charged with a crime.