Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals | 2025
Decisions
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.