<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

With so many attorneys out there, how do you know which one is the right one for your criminal case? Start by calling the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free with Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

The defendant appealed from his traffic case in which a judge convicted him of overweight vehicle. He was punished with a $290-fine plus court costs and fees $206.50. The defendant was driving the trash truck for his employer, the waste management service. The company contracts with cities to collect refuse from residences and businesses and haul it to a landfill. The defendant was stopped by an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper.

The trooper saw the vehicle’s tires and that led him to believe that it might be overweight. Weighing of the truck confirmed it was overweight.

The defendant argued that the vehicle weight limitations of statute that he was accused of violating did not apply to his truck because it was a refuse collection vehicle, which falls within an exception to that statute. The state agreed that the defendant’s truck was a refuse collection vehicle within the meaning of statutory exception. However, argued that the truck did not qualify for the exception because it’s owner had not purchase an overload permit pursuant to that statute of the statute provides that refuse collection vehicles under the exceptions must purchase an annual special overload permit for $100.

The appellate court said that the single issue here is one of statutory construction. That being does a truck owner qualify for the exemption provided for a statute with having to purchase special overload permit required by subsection. The appellate court answered in the negative and affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

The final rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention the legislature is expressed in the statute. Statutes are to be construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of their language. The court said that the legislature honestly intended in the plain language of the statute states, the subsection providing an exception to weight limits for refuse collection vehicles. The lawmaking body clearly intended that those vehicles purchase an annual special overload limit.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that even traffic violations can have a detrimental impact. Conviction of this sort can raise insurance premiums, or in some cases, cost person to lose his commercial driver’s license. That’s why it’s important to have aggressive legal representation. So for someone is going to work hard for you, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.

In another case, the defendant was convicted of lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16 and soliciting session conduct a command case with one of the use of technology. He was us to five years in prison on the first count with all but the three your suspended and five years with all but three suspended in the second count as well.

The defendant contended on appeal that statute on which he was convicted is unconstitutional as to his sexual text messages to six-year-old over the age of consent with him he was in a relationship. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed.

The defendant was a trooper with Oklahoma Highway Patrol. He was 44 years old and married. The girl was 15 years old. She attended school with the defendant’s son. The defendant had an illicit relationship with the girl that culminated and sexual intercourse in the defendant’s patrol car.

In October 2009, the defendant communicated with girl through electronic devices and social media. The defendant friended the girl on Facebook and conversed with her by instant messaging. He also text message her to her cell phone. From mid December to early January the next year, the defendant started telling the girl that he loved her. The defendant persuaded the girl to meet him in person. He picked her up from home one night when her parents were out of town. Defendant took her out to an area near a clear area and parked. The defendant kissed the girl, held her hand, placed his hand under her shirt and bra and touched her breast. The girl repeatedly told the defendant “no” when he placed his fingers in the waste of her pants. Eventually, the defendant took the girl home.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has a wide range of criminal defense experience. He’s been practicing for nearly 20 years. He aggressively defense people charged with serious sex crimes.

Afterwards, the defendant continued to text message and phone girl. He told her he wanted to marry her and said that he would leave his wife and kids. A couple months later, the defendant persuaded the girl to me and at a city park. Call arrived at the park with the assistance of a girlfriend it was old enough to drive. The defendant and the girl met on three or four occasions engage in sexual activity. The meetings took place at night when there were no other vehicles in the park.

After the girl turned 16 and began to drive, the defendant persuaded her to meet him on numerous occasions. Over the course of several months, the defendant coaxed the girl to engage and escalate sex acts with him. The girl was reluctant to engage in sexual activities. Defendant convinced her to perform the acts by referencing the text messages that they had exchanged.

The defendant also give the girl several gifts. Give her a necklace, sweatshirt, and eventually orang. Promised call that they were going to get married. At the end of June, the defendant sent text messages to the girl that were intended to persuade her to have sex with him. The defendant sent the girl multiple messages about China meet inner feelings toward each other. On one night, the defendant sent her a message that stated that they would be having sex already if he was able to pick her up.

A month later, the defendant in the girl had sex in his patrol car. The girl described the sex as mutual even though she was reluctant. Girl related that the defendant want to have sex but does she did not want to because she felt it was wrong. She explained that she gave him because the defendant stated that he did not understand why she would not want to if she loved him. Thereafter, the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with a girl in his patrol car once a week until mid-November.

The defendant told the girl that the one found out about the relationship that she was supposed to say that she was the one that initiated the sexual conduct. Girl informed her friends that she had lost her virginity to the defendant. Several students report the matter to the school superintendent who, in turn, notify the Oklahoma Highway Patrol

the Oklahoma Highway Patrol investigations division investigated the defendant’s relationship the girl and interviewed him. First, the defendant not deny the relationship but then conceded that he had been texting her for more than a year. Eventually, the defendant admitted that he had sex with a girl. He agreed that the acts began before the girls 16th birthday.