Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals | 2025

December 22, 2025

Decisions

NAPOLEON v. STATE
2025 OK CR 25
Case Number: F-2024-123
Decided: 12/18/2025
Mandate Issued: 12/18/2025

¶1 Appellant Patrick Marquise Napoleon appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-2208, for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652(C). The Honorable William D. LaFortune, District Judge, presided over Napoleon’s jury trial and sentenced him, according to the jury’s verdict, to sixty-five years imprisonment with credit for time served. ¹ Napoleon raises seven issues for review:

(1) whether the district court erred in denying his motion to exclude DNA evidence because the DNA was contaminated;

(2) whether the district court erred in denying his motion to exclude DNA evidence because the probabilistic genotyping testing that was conducted was not sufficiently reliable;

(3) whether the district court improperly limited his defense;

(4) whether the district court admitted prejudicial hearsay evidence;

(5) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel;

(6) whether he was denied a fair trial because of the prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence; and

(7) whether an accumulation of error deprived him of a fair trial.

¶2 We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.

HADDOCK v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK CR 24
Case Number: F-2025-67
Decided: 11/13/2025
Mandate Issued: 11/13/2025

O P I N I O N

HUDSON, JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant, Jennifer Haddock, appeals a final pretrial order denying her claim of statutory immunity from criminal prosecution and motion to dismiss under 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 1289.25(F). The State charged Haddock in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF–2023–4586, with First Degree Heat of Passion Manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2021, § 711(2), for the shooting death of her brother, Sean Haddock.

¶2 Twelve days before the scheduled preliminary hearing, Haddock moved to dismiss the charges, claiming immunity from prosecution pursuant to the Stand Your Ground law. See generally 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 1289.25(F). The preliminary hearing setting was stricken pending resolution of the pretrial immunity claim. The Honorable Susan Stallings, District Judge, heard the matter during a pretrial hearing held on December 3rd and December 6th, 2024. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Stallings took the matter under advisement and later received proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law from both parties. On January 27, 2025, Judge Stallings entered a written order finding that Haddock was not immune from criminal prosecution.

¶3 Haddock now appeals this ruling under 22 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1051(D) and presents two propositions of error for our consideration. First, Haddock contends that the district court erred in finding Sean Haddock, the decedent, was a tenant at will and that she was a trespasser who was potentially engaged in unlawful activity. Second, Haddock argues the district court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider all relevant facts and law before concluding that she failed to prove that her use of deadly force was justified.

¶4 After careful review, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying immunity and REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

TURNER v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK CR 23
Case Number: F-2024-6002
Decided: 11/13/2025
Mandate Issued: 11/13/2025

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant, Antony Dimitri Turner, was tried by jury in the District Court of Comanche County, Case No. CF-2021-590, and was convicted of Count 1: Sexual Battery, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 1123(B); and Count 2: Lewd or Indecent Acts With a Child Under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 1123(A)(2). ¹ The jury sentenced Turner to five years imprisonment on Count 1 and ten years imprisonment on Count 2. The Honorable Jay Walker, District Judge, presided at trial and pronounced judgment and sentence in accordance with the jury’s verdicts. Judge Walker further imposed a $1,000.00 fine on each count, ordered the sentences to run consecutively and ordered credit for time served. ²

¶2 Turner now appeals, alleging two propositions of error. First, Turner alleges that the trial court erred by failing to ensure Appellant and the State entered a proper, written waiver of the presentence investigation report. Second, Turner claims that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective.

¶3 After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and the parties’ briefs, we find that no relief is required under the law and evidence. Appellant’s judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

RODRIGUEZ v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK CR 22
Case Number: F-2024-471
Decided: 10/23/2025
Mandate Issued: 10/23/2025

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, JUDGE:

¶1 Rolando Solomon Rodriguez, Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty of domestic assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2021, § 644(D)(1), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2023-2719. The jury found Appellant guilty after former conviction of two or more felonies and assessed punishment of twenty years imprisonment. The Honorable Michelle Keely, District Judge, pronounced judgment accordingly. Mr. Rodriguez appeals in the following propositions of error.

1. Mr. Rodriguez’ [sic] constitutional right to compulsory process was denied by the trial court in violation of Article II, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution;

2. The trial court erred when it determined the hearsay statements of A.L. made to Detective Amy Hall were not admissible;

3. Mr. Rodriguez received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

…

¶10 However, we find no compulsory process violation in the trial court’s denial of a mistrial, because the omitted testimony cannot meet the materiality requirement. The remaining evidence at trial included the declarant’s reliable and convincing hearsay statements to other witnesses that Appellant attacked her, corroborated by her injuries and, to some degree, by the Appellant’s own testimony.Considering the omitted evidence in view of this properly admitted evidence, the denial of access to this partially or arguably inconsistent statement does not undermine our confidence in the jury’s verdict. The denial of a mistrial thus did not infringe Appellant’s right to compulsory process. Propositions One and Two are therefore denied.

¶11 In Proposition Three, Appellant argues that trial counsel’s omission to seek a continuance to present the detective’s testimony about the victim’s inconsistent statement was ineffective assistance of counsel. We review this challenge according to the familiar two-pronged deficient performance and prejudice analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra, at 687. Based on what we have already said, counsel’s omission to request a continuance to present this unavailable witness was not constitutionally ineffective.

¶12 When a claim of ineffectiveness can be disposed of on the ground of lack of prejudice, that course should be followed. Malone v. State, 2013 OK CR 1, ¶ 16, 293 P.3d 198, 207 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697). We conclude here that even if counsel performed deficiently in crafting Appellant’s arguments for admitting the detective’s testimony, then failed to seek a continuance to obtain that testimony, we find no reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome would have been different. A reasonable probability, after all, is one that undermines our confidence in the outcome. As already mentioned, Appellant clearly assaulted and battered the victim with a dangerous weapon. Proposition Three is therefore denied.

DECISION

¶13 The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2025), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

WATSON v. STATE
2025 OK CR 21
Case Number: PC-2025-648
Decided: 10/24/2025

¶1 Petitioner, pro se, seeks to appeal the denial of his request to apply for resentencing under the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act, 22 O.S.Supp.2024, § 1090.5 (C)(2), in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2021-4683. Petitioner attached the trial court’s order denying his request to apply for resentencing, dated July 1, 2025, to the “Appeal for Resentencing Pursuant to the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act,” filed in this Court on August 15, 2025.

¶2 Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Appeal in the trial court on July 9, 2025. On August 15, 2025, he filed a document labeled “Defendant’s Appeal for Resentencing Pursuant to the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act, Okla.Stat.Tit. 22, § 1090.1, Et Seq” and “Legal Brief in Support of Petitioner’s Claim Under the Oklahoma Survivor’s Act.”

¶3 The trial court’s July 1, 2025, order is not appealable. Mr. Watson is challenging an order issued pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2024, § 1090.5(C)(2), which denied his request to apply for resentencing pursuant to the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act. Individuals seeking resentencing pursuant to this Act must first seek and be granted permission to apply by the trial court. 22 O.S.Supp.2024, § 1090.5 (C). A trial court order denying such a request is not a final appealable order. 22 O.S.Supp.2024, § 1090.5(C)(2)(“If the court finds that such person has not met the requirements to apply for resentencing as provided for in subsection A of this section, the court shall notify the person and deny his or her request without prejudice.”).

¶4 The district court determinations of eligibility for applying for resentencing are not appealable because the Act has specified those determinations are “without prejudice,” meaning a defendant can continue to obtain relevant information and re-apply without being barred by the district court’s previous denial of the right to apply or to have a hearing on the application. See 22 O.S.Supp.2024, §§ 1090.5 (C)(2) & (G)(1).

¶5 Only when the district court rules on the merits of the application after conducting an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2024, § 1090.5 (G)(2), by setting forth findings of facts and reasons for the order either denying resentencing or imposing a new sentence does the Act contemplate an appeal to this Court. See 22 O.S.Supp.2024, §§ 1090.5 (H), (I) & (J).

¶6 Since Petitioner is not barred from again seeking permission to apply for resentencing under the Act, there is an adequate remedy available to him. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief is DISMISSED. Issuance of this order concludes these proceedings before this Court.

MITCHELL v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK CR 20
Case Number: C-2024-509
Decided: 10/23/2025
Mandate Issued: 10/23/2025

OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI

HUDSON, JUDGE:

¶1 On March 11, 2024, Petitioner, Christopher Mitchell, entered a blind plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2020-145, to Counts 1, 2 and 4: Embezzlement, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2017 & 2018, § 1451; Count 3: Obtaining Money by False Pretenses, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1541.1; Count 5: Obtaining Money by False Pretenses, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2016 & 2017, § 1541.1, or in the alternative, Embezzlement, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2016 & 2017, § 1451; and Counts 6 through 10: Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, in violation of 15 O.S.2011, § 761.1. ¹ The Honorable Susan Stallings, District Judge, accepted Mitchell’s plea and delayed sentencing pending the completion and filing of a presentence investigation.

¶2 On May 16, 2024, the matter came on for sentencing. After hearing evidence and argument from both parties, Judge Stallings sentenced Mitchell to ten years imprisonment each on Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, all suspended; five years imprisonment each on Counts 2 and 4, all suspended; and ten years imprisonment on Count 8. ² The court ordered Counts 1 through 5 to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to Count 8, and Counts 7, 9, and 10 to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to Counts 1–5 and 8. ³ The trial court further imposed various costs and fees and took the issue of restitution under advisement. On July 5, 2024, the trial court later assessed $563,378.25 in restitution.

¶3 On May 22, 2024, less than a week later, Petitioner filed a pro se Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty for Cause. Petitioner asserted therein that (1) he “did not understand that he was placing hi[m] self at the mercy of the court,” and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel which forced him to enter a blind plea. The State filed an Objection and Response to Petitioner’s withdrawal motion on June 12, 2024. Defense counsel Aaron W. Easton entered an appearance on behalf of Petitioner on June 20, 2024, and filed an Amended and Supplemental Application to Withdraw Plea. In the amended application to withdraw, Petitioner claimed plea counsel, Redmond Kemether, was ineffective for: (1) failing to prepare for trial as he never intended to try the case; (2) failing to file pleadings; and (3) failing to inform Petitioner of the State’s final plea offer that then lapsed.

¶4 A hearing on Petitioner’s motion to withdraw was held that same day. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Petitioner’s motion to withdraw. Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari.

¶5 Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari based on the following proposition of error:

I. PETITIONER’S PLEAS WERE NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY ENTERED BECAUSE HE WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

¶6 After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and the parties’ briefs, we find that relief is required under the law and evidence. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED.

BERTRAND v. STATE
2025 OK CR 19
Case Number: F-2024-38
Decided: 10/16/2025
Mandate Issued: 10/16/2025

O P I N I O N

ROWLAND, JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant Cody Leaon Bertrand appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Rogers County, Case No. CF-2020-158, for two counts of Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 12, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1123(A)(2). The Honorable Terrell S. Crosson, Special Judge, presided over Bertrand’s jury trial and sentenced him according to the jury’s verdict to twenty-five years imprisonment and a $5,000.00 fine on Count 1 and forty-five years imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine on Count 2. ¹ Judge Crosson awarded credit for time served and ordered the counts to run consecutively with each other and consecutive to Rogers County Case No. CF-2018-51. Bertrand appeals raising seven issues:

(1) whether the trial court erred by finding he was not an Indian for purposes of criminal jurisdiction;

(2) whether the trial court erred in admitting sexual propensity evidence;

(3) whether the trial court erred in admitting child hearsay statements;

(4) whether the trial court erred in denying Bertrand’s request to present a defense witness via videoconferencing;

(5) whether the trial court erred in refusing his requested jury instruction on sex offender registration;

(6) whether the evidence was legally sufficient to convict him of the crimes charged; and

(7) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

¶2 We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.

NOTIFICATION OF NEW FORM FOR PURPOSES OF INITIAL BAIL
2025 OK CR 18
Case Number: CCAD-2025-3
Decided: 10/14/2025

¶1 On September 24, 2025, a uniform document was submitted to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration for use by district court judges in support of the initial determination of bail. The Court has reviewed the document entitled Court’s Findings for Purposes of Initial Bail Determination and approves the discretionary use of the form by state district court judges as a form, checklist, or guide, and further issues this administrative directive for purposes of providing notice of the availability of said form.

¶2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the form entitled Court’s Findings for Purposes of Initial Bail Determination is a preformatted template available to Oklahoma judges for use or as guidance when determining bail in a case. The Court’s Findings for Purposes of Initial Bail Determination is not required to be filed of record in district court cases. The preformatted form shall be available for access via the internet from this Court’s website under the menu for “Court Resources” on okcca.net.

BU v. STATE
2025 OK CR 17
Case Number: F-2023-615
Decided: 10/07/2025

SUMMARY OPINION
ROWLAND, JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant Cia Dong Bu appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Pontotoc County, Case No. CF-2022-65, for Cultivation of Controlled Substance (Count 1), in violation of 63 O.S.2021, § 2-509. ¹ The Honorable Steve Kessinger, District Judge, presided over Bu’s jury trial and sentenced him to four years imprisonment and a $50,000.00 fine.

¶2 Bu appeals raising the following issues:

(1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the admission of other crimes evidence;

(2) whether Oklahoma’s cultivation statute is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him;

(3) whether the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction cultivation; and

(4) whether the State’s failure to preserve and disclose evidence violated his right to due process.

¶3 We find relief is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.

BU v. STATE
2025 OK CR 16
Case Number: F-2023-615
Decided: 10/07/2025

ORDER TO PUBLISH

¶1 On September 16, 2025, Appellee, the State of Oklahoma, by and through Attorney General Gentner F. Drummond, filed a Motion To Publish Opinion in the above-styled case. The Attorney General asserts that publication of this Court’s Summary Opinion herein, Bu v. State, Case No. F-2023-615 (August 21, 2025) (Not for Publication), is warranted because it addressed an issue of first impression.

¶2 Appellee’s Motion to Publish is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to designate the Summary Opinion issued on August 21, 2025, as “For Publication.” The unpublished opinion is withdrawn and substituted with 2025 OK CR 17, Bu v. State.

LOPEZ v. STATE
2025 OK CR 15
Case Number: F-2023-401
Decided: 09/25/2025

¶1 Appellant, Jonathan Portillo Lopez, was tried and convicted by a jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2021-919, of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7. ¹ The jury sentenced Lopez to life imprisonment. The Honorable Susan Stallings, District Judge, presided at trial and pronounced judgment and sentence in accordance with the jury’s verdict and further imposed a $50.00 fine. Lopez must serve 85% of his sentence before becoming parole eligible. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1.

¶2 Lopez now appeals and raises the following propositions of error: (1) the trial court wrongly denied Appellant his constitutional right to testify when it terminated his testimony; (2) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective; (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the defense of another; (4) the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of heat of passion manslaughter; (5) the trial court erred in restricting defense counsel from correcting a misleading statement regarding Appellant’s criminal history; and (6) cumulative error.

¶3 After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and the parties’ briefs, we find that Proposition One has merit, which for reasons set forth below mandates that Lopez’s conviction be REVERSED and the case REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

IN RE: REVISION OF PORTION OF THE RULES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
2025 OK CR 14
Case Number: CCAD-2025-2
Decided: 09/12/2025

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING FORMS
AND ADOPTING NEW FORM

¶1 We find that a new Form should be adopted and certain existing Forms revised due to the Sentencing Modernization Act of 2024 as well as several needed updates. To that end, we find that amending Forms 13.8 and 13.10; and the creation of Form 13.18 is necessary. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1051(B) of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, we hereby revise, adopt, promulgate, and republish portions of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2025), as set forth in the following attachment (~~strikethrough~~ denotes deleted words, underline denotes added words).

IN RE ADOPTION OF THE 2025 REVISIONS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS CRIMINAL (SECOND EDITION)
2025 OK CR 13
Case Number: CCAD-2025-1
Decided: 09/12/2025

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO OKLAHOMA
UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS-CRIMINAL (SECOND EDITION)

¶1 On May 9, 2025, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Committee for Preparation of Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions (Committee) submitted its report and recommendations to the Court for adoption of amendments to Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions-Criminal (Second Edition) (OUJI-CR (2d)). The Court has reviewed the report and recommendations by the Committee for the adoption of the proposed 2025 revisions to the Uniform Jury Instructions. Pursuant to 12 O.S.2021, § 577.1, the Court accepts that report and finds the revisions should be adopted.

BROADSTONE v. STATE
2025 OK CR 12
Case Number: C-2024-614
Decided: 08/07/2025
Mandate Issued: 08/07/2025

SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI

HUDSON, JUDGE:

¶1 On February 22, 2024, Petitioner, Deadrea Zenise Broadstone, entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2023-1438, to Count 1: Felon in Possession of a Firearm, After Former Conviction of Two or more Felonies, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1283; and Count 2: Possession of Stolen Property under $1,000.00, a misdemeanor, in violation of 21 O.S.2021, § 1713. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner was ordered to complete the Women in Recovery (WIR) program. The failure to do so would result in the imposition of a ten-year sentence of imprisonment. The Honorable Sharon K. Holmes, District Judge, accepted Broadstone’s plea and postponed sentencing for Petitioner to complete the WIR program.

TERRY et al. v. DRUMMOND et al.
2025 OK CR 11
Case Number: CQ-2025-185
Decided: 07/17/2025
Mandate Issued: 07/17/2025

OPINION ANSWERING CERTIFIED QUESTION OF LAW

LEWIS, JUDGE:

¶1 Before this Court is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit entered in the pending appeal styled Sincere Terry, et al v. Gentner Drummond, et al, No. 24-6046. The Judges therein certify the following question to this Court:

Does Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1311 require the State to prove the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence toward another to convict for threats constituting riot?

¶2 This Court responds to this request pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act. 20 O.S.2021, § 1601 et seq. We answer this question in the negative for the reasons stated below.

REECE v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK CR 10
Case Number: D-2021-867
Decided: 07/16/2025

OPINION

LEWIS, JUDGE:

¶1 William Lewis Reece, Appellant, was tried by jury on Murder in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1997, § 701.7 (A), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2015-6989, before the Honorable Susan Stallings, District Judge. The jury found Reece guilty and sentenced him to death after finding the following aggravating circumstances: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person; (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; (3) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution; and (4) the existence of a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. See 21 O.S.1991, § 701.12 (1), (4), (5), and (7). The trial court later sentenced Reece in accordance with the jury’s verdict. From this Judgment and Sentence, Reece has perfected his appeal to this Court.

REECE v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK CR 9
Case Number: D-2021-867
Decided: 07/16/2025

ORDER WITHDRAWING AND STRIKING PREVIOUSLY ISSUED OPINION AND MANDATE AND SUBSTITUTING
CORRECTED OPINION

¶1 This Court has been informed that the Opinion issued on July 10, 2025, in the above styled case, cited Reece v. State, 2025 OK CR 8, inadvertently misspelled the victim’s name in the Opinion. ¹ The Opinion and Mandate is, therefore, withdrawn and stricken and a new Opinion will be issued as Reece v. State, 2025 OK CR 10.

¶2 IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the previously issued Opinion and Mandate filed on July 10, 2025, shall be withdrawn and stricken. A new Opinion, 2025 OK CR 10, shall be filed along with this Order.

REECE v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK CR 8
Case Number: D-2021-867
Decided: 07/10/2025

OPINION

LEWIS, JUDGE:

SPYBUCK v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK CR 7
Case Number: M-2024-132
Decided: 07/3/2025

ROBERT WAYNE SPYBUCK, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.

OPINION

¶1 Following a non-jury trial, Appellant, appearing pro se, was convicted of being in Actual Physical Control of a Vehicle Under the Influence of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (47 O.S.2021, § 11-902(A)(3)) in Comanche County District Court Case No. CM-2023-137. The Honorable Susan Zwaan, Special Judge, presided at trial, found Appellant guilty, and sentenced him to one year in the Comanche County Detention Center, all suspended, and assessed a fine of $300.00. From this judgment and sentence, Appellant appeals.

…

¶10 Appellant’s misdemeanor conviction in Comanche County District Court Case No. CM-2023-137 is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2025), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

STITT v. CITY OF TULSA
2025 OK CR 6
Case Number: M-2022-984
Decided: 03/13/2025

MARVIN KEITH STITT, Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF TULSA, Appellee.

CORRECTION ORDER

¶1 On March 6, 2025, this Court issued its opinion in the above-referenced case, affirming the Judgment and Sentence in City of Tulsa Municipal Court Citation/Case No. 7569655.

¶2 This Court’s opinion issued in the above-referenced matter is corrected to add the appearances as follows:

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL — AMICI CURIAE

ANDREW W. LESTER
SPENCER FANE LLP
9400 NORTH BROADWAY EXTENSION,
SUITE 600
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73114
COUNSEL FOR OKLAHOMA ASSOCIATION
OF MUNICIPAL ATTORNEYS

CHAD HARSHA
ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHEROKEE NATION
P.O. BOX 948
TAHLEQUAH, OK 74465
COUNSEL FOR CHEROKEE NATION

¶3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

¶4 WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 13th day of March, 2025.

/s/GARY L. LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge

STITT v. CITY OF TULSA
2025 OK CR 5
Case Number: M-2022-984
Decided: 03/06/2025

¶1 Appellant, Marvin Keith Stitt, was convicted of Aggravated Speeding (Tulsa, Okla., Rev. Ordinances Title 37, § 617(C) (2021)) following a non-jury trial before the Honorable Mitchell McCune, Municipal Judge, and fined $250.00 in City of Tulsa Municipal Court Citation/Case No. 7569655.

…

¶9 The Judgment and Sentence of the Municipal Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2025), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

THOMPSON v. STATE
2025 OK CR 4
Case Number: F-2024-82
Decided: 02/13/2025

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant,Rodney Vaughn Thompson, was tried by the court and convicted in the District Court of Canadian County, Case No. CF-2018-729 of: Count 1, Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-415(C); Count 2, Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-415(B); and Count 3, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-401(A)(1). The trial court found Appellant guilty on all counts and sentenced Appellant to fifteen years imprisonment, with all but the first five years suspended on Count 1; and five years imprisonment on Counts 2 and 3. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently with one another.

¶2 From this judgment and sentence, Appellant appeals and raises the following proposition of error:

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT’S MOTION TO QUASH ARREST, SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, AND DISMISS THE CHARGES.

¶3 After thorough consideration of this proposition and the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we have determined that under the law and the evidence, Appellant is not entitled to relief.

Posted in 2025, Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals