Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Looking for the Best | Cale Law Office
Are you looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer? Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years. Plus, he focuses his practice on criminal defense. That means he has the right kind of experience.

This is an appeal by the prosecution from an order granting a motion to suppress. The suppression order covers evidence obtained a search of a truck in which 16 kilograms of cocaine were found after learned by searched on. The trial Jennings and concluded there was a pretextual and unlawful detention of the defendants. He also concluded victims for the search was not informed her voluntary. Additionally, he said that the officer exceeded the scope of the consent given since obtained as a result must be suppressed. Here’s a summary the case.

The officer was traveling on Interstate 40 for a Tulsa when the U-Haul truck passed him and move intentionally the truck been registered speed. The trooper followed for a considerable distance, commonsense or determining that the trucks license plates were not wanted. The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and transporting an open bottle of beer. The difficulty to the first two counts. The remaining counts were dismissed. Defendant entered a drug court program.

As part of the drug court program, and that he failed, he would be sentenced to 12 years in prison. On the other hand, if he succeeded, the rainy charges would be dismissed. The state filed an application to terminate the defendant from a drug corporate. Elected and adulterated drug test. Following a hearing the state’s application, the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violated the terms of his performance contract. Consequently, the judge sentenced him to 12 years imprisonment, with credit for time served.

Are you looking for the best criminal attorney Tulsa has to offer? Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience as a lawyer. Plus, he focuses his practice on criminal defense. That means he has the right kind of experience for your case. Call attorney Stephen Cale. Your initial consultation is free.

The defendant appealed from his termination from drug court. On appeal, he argued that the trial court abused its discretion allow the deductions evidence without exception to the hearsay rule the defendant believe that the court found that he violated the terms of his program based solely on the admissible evidence. The defendant also argued that there was insufficient evidence to show that the defendant act that was in violation of his performance contract. As consequence, he argued, the commission of the drug court was abuse of discretion of the facts of this case.

At the revocation hearing, the defendant is found in violated the conditions of the plea agreement or performance contract and disciplinary sanctions have been is sufficient to gain compliance, offender must be revoked from the program. In addition, he must be sentence for the offense provided in the plea agreement. The Oklahoma drug court act requires the drug court judge to recognize relapses starts in the program by ordering progressively increasing sanctions. In addition, the court may provide incentives for the offender from the program when a relapse occurs. Exception is when the offender’s conduct requires revocation from the program. The decision to revoke or terminate a person from drug court lies within the discretion of the drug court judge.

If you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has for drug crimes, call the Cale Law Office. Schedule your free initial station with attorney Stephen Cale by calling 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale nearly 20 years of experience as a lawyer. He has handled hundreds of drug cases. He has even gone to try cases dismissed.

In this case, the trial court coordinator in the states sole witness about the contents of the lab report that she did not prepare. He did not conduct the test and it was Doctor reduced and evidence. The defendant argued that this evidence supported only by let’s violation, was based entirely without exception and not very a sufficient indication of reliability. It argues that when the child existence of this violation and terminated his program, and abuse its discretion the appellate court agreed.

Hearsay evidence is immiscible in termination proceedings. The trial court may rely upon an out-of-court statement that bears substantial guarantees of trustworthiness without the filing of the fence right of confrontation. However, termination from the drug court cannot be based entirely on hearsay evidence. It was. Additionally, the state was is not show that this evidence bears a sufficient indication of reliability concerning the defendant provided to the test shortly after the diluted test.

The appellate court also has great concerns of the allegations contained in this record which paint a picture relating to the operation of the court. For example, the record drug coordinator is related to the owner of the rehabilitation center which is run by the courtesans. Additionally, another family member owns property in which the record petitions record complete service requirements for which they are not paid. The allegations include impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.

There’s also possible crafting corruption. The police may conduct a valid warrantless search of having a voluntary consent to do so. Knowledge of the right to withhold consent, while a factor to be considered, is not a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent. If you’re looking for the Tulsa has to offer, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. He is definitely worth the money. His clients highly recommend him. You should see his reviews. An officer’s also noted that he has a warrant negates the possibility of consent. A person with a parent legal right to use or occupy the property may consent to assert also, any evidence found may be used against the other owners or occupants.