<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/hmonYT-rJ9Y?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you or someone you know is looking for an attorney to appeal a conviction, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades and focuses on criminal defense.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony and only concealing stolen property after former conviction of a felony the jury recommended 10 years in prison on the first count in two years in the second count. The trial court sentence accordingly. After their consideration of the defendants alleged errors on appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the second count the stolen property.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the state violate the prohibition against double jeopardy by carving to crimes from one presence of a gun. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss count to on the multiple punishment grounds for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts law pertaining to the matter at issue.

Statute governing multiple punishments for a single criminal act provides in relevant part that act or omission which is made possible in different ways by different provisions may be punished under any of such provisions. However in no case can a criminal act or omission be punished under more than one section of law and common acquittal or conviction and sentence under one sexual law bars prosecution for the same act or omission under other sections of law.

In the present case, a sheriff step a certain arrest warrant on the defendant had a house owned by his girlfriend. Debbie’s have bruising counter the defendant had the house and Ian had been told by the defendant that he lived at the house. The defendant was known to Debbie’s to be convicted felon.

A deputy person front door the house and knocked several times. The door opened, the deputy felt as though someone was behind the door. The deputy called for another deputy was at the back door and together they entered the house with guns drawn. The defendant was crouched behind the front door with his hands up. Uribe directions to get on the floor and he was handcuffed. In a protective sweep the house, down was found on the kitchen table. The kitchen area appeared to be a separate room. It was open and visible from the front door. The weapon to be seen from the front door. Deputies checked the weapon and found that it was loaded but not chamber loaded. Debbie’s later determined that the government had been stolen.

The defendant was charged and convicted of committing offenses of felony possession and knowingly concealing stolen property at the same time. The same weapon was used to support both convictions. There is no temporal break in time between the defendant’s possession began in his concealing it. Because of the language of a felony information of the lack of showing of separate and distinct acts, the appellate court found that the defendant’s active having become improperly resulted in two charges and resulting convictions. As a result, the trial court abuse of discretion in finding that two separate distinct crimes had been committed and in denying the motion to dismiss count two. The defendant’s to convictions violate the multiple punishment provision of title 21, section 11.

The jury was informed that the defendant was present not to have been princely convicted and it was the state’s burden to prove prior conviction be unoriginal doubt. The second stanza felony information contained the allegation of the prior conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substance the presence of my was red and evidence was presented to the jury. The jury then instructed on a range of punishment for not only concealing stolen property after one prior conviction and with no prior conviction.

The jury was also instructed the defendant been charged with possession of a firearm after having been convicted of second-degree burglary. Additionally was told that the states burden to prove the charge be unoriginal doubt. The jury was instructed on the range punishment they found the defendant guilty.

The Oklahoma court of criminal appeals have that the directions were clear, explicit and him unambiguous. Jurors are presumed to follow the instructions. There’s nothing the record indicate that the jury cannot follow the instruction. The instructions were specific enough to clearly challenge the jury’s decision that the process between the felon in possession charge and the sentencing for Norwegian choice one property conviction.

The US Supreme Court is held that in executing arrest warrant for a defendant, the deputies could lawfully conduct protective sweep of the home, occupied by known felon, to determine if there were any other persons the house or any weapons which could be used against them. Additionally, under that case in a plane the exception to the warrant requirement, the deputies could sees the gun like a plain view on the kitchen table. With initial intrusion that brings the place within plain view such an article is supported, not by a warrant, but by one of the record as exceptions to the warrant requirement, this seizure is also legitimate. The plain view exception requires an officer to have a lawful right of access to the object in plain view and the incriminating nature of the item be imminently apparent, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

The record on appeal includes pleadings and documents filed in the case, exhibits that were admitted, exhibits that were offered but denied admission, and transcript of the proceedings. It’s important to make objections during proceedings so that the objections can be preserved on appeal said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. No new evidence is introduced on appeal. The appellate court will merely look at the trial record.

If you’re looking for a qualified trial and appellate attorney criminal matters, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. You also get a complimentary defense strategy plan is custom-made to your case.