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

Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale Law Office is free. Attorney Cale will also develop a free defense strategy plan document for you. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades and focuses his practice on criminal defense.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale is a member of the legal committee for NORML. NORML stands for the national organization for the Reform of marijuana laws. If you are a friend have been charged with a drug-related crime, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale has handled numerous drug-related charges. He Is a very effective lawyer.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with unlawful possession of controlled drug with intent to distribute. You are the facts of the case. The jury found the defendant guilty and two cases recommend the sentence 40 years in 20 years of age. The trial court sentenced accordingly. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction in one case, the reversed and remanded for retrial the conviction in the second case.

Stay produced only two witnesses. One of them was the owner of the bar were a burglary allegedly occurred. The owner testified at the bar and flooded was come close down for a couple weeks. He is not checked on establishment until the day at issue. On that day, go to the bar and as he approached, he saw five men crossing over little bridge heading towards the building. Three men remained in a park across the bar. The other two men went to worst the building. There is some two-man guest room window inside the bar.

As he crossed are the bridge, the owner observes to and Camille the bar through the same window. Identified the defendant as a second man who came out the bar. He was carrying two beer cans. The defense on the owner, it’s related to cans. As the other two men behind beer police arrived and arrested them.

An officer testified that he took the defendant stated at the station the day after the incident. This officer did not arrest the appellate. Testified that the defendant discussed that he was in the park across the bar remember crossing the bridge in the bar. Someone yelled something, and the defendant told his friend that relief because a person might have a gun.

The defendant said that he went over to the river but it was flooding over the banks. In his friend cannot get across. So they came back to the park where police arrested them. The defendant contended that there was not enough evidence to convict him of second-degree burglary. He said this was because the state failed to prove that he accomplish the necessary elements of breaking. Additionally, he argued that the court should have instructed on the lesser included offense of illegal entry. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The fact that the bar enclosed for business within two weeks because of flooding is a factor.

The other factors as well. One important fact was that the bar owner saw the defendant and his friends inside from the time he crossed the bridge and saw him going to the park come out the bar window with two beer cans. Additionally, the owner did not see the defendant or his companion raise the bars on the window. Another important fact was that there was no evidence that the defendant or his companions broke the pain out the window. Yet another factor was the fact that there are a number of missing items that they were not with the defendants.

The prosecutor argued that illegal entry is not a lesser included offense of burglary. The appellate court disagreed. The only element of a burglary that is lacking in a misdemeanor offense of illegal entry is the breaking component. If you take away the breaking component, the illegal entry element remains. Therefore, it emphasized that illegal entry is a lesser included offense of burglary attempted burglary.

In another case, the defendant was a jury trial on charges of unlawful distribution of a controlled dangerous substance methamphetamine. The jury sentenced him to 10 years. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction but vacated the fines. Here’s a summary the facts of the case.

The appellate court held that the trial court did not make a mistake when he refused to instruct the jury that defendant must show his within 2000 feet of the school. The statute in question does not contain a specific mens rea requirement. Also, the plainly which of the statute suggests that the actus reus of the fence is the distribution itself not where it occurs. Therefore, the statute requires the state to prove that the defendant intended to distribute the drugs somewhere. Additional proof that the distribution occurred within 2000 feet of a school acts as an aggravate her and provides to enhance the penalty for distributing drugs within the vicinity of a school.

The defendant also argued that the court should have instructed the jury concerning the 85 percent rule. Even though the appellate court recently ruled that jury should be instructed on a five percent rule, the court does not need to provide instruction in this case. Another statute enhanced the defendant’s sentence. This provision applies to those cases were prior offenses were for the same statue.

The court held that the sentencing instruction correctly informed the jury the range punishment. However, part of the instruction informed the jury that they can impose a fine of up to $40,000. Fish and I’ve been given to the jury because it’s a misstatement of the law. The defendant is convicted of a drug offense of the senses enhanced pursuant to a specific statute, the fine provided in a drug statute may not also be imposed. Therefore the appellate court vacated the fine.

If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, call attorney Stephen Cale the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free.