Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals | 2026

May 4, 2026

Decisions

SORRELL v. STATE
2026 OK CR 16
Case Number: F-2025-17
Decided: 04/30/2026

¶1 Appellant,Lonnie Keith Sorrell, was tried by jury and convicted in the District Court of McClain County, Case No. CF-2023-1905 of Counts 1-3, Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child under Twelve, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 1123(A)(4). ¹ The jury returned guilty verdicts on each count with sentences of twenty-five years imprisonment on each. The trial court sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict and ordered the sentences in Counts 1 and 2 to run consecutively to one another and the sentence in Count 3 to run concurrently to those in Counts 1 and 2.

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

I. THE PROSECUTOR INVADED THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY BY USING WITNESSES TO BOLSTER THE CREDIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESS.

II. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING ALL THREE SENTENCES TO RUN [C]ONCURRENTLY.

¶3 After thorough consideration of these propositions 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.

…

¶18 The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2026), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

STATE v. RUSSELL
2026 OK CR 15
Case Number: S-2025-48
Decided: 04/16/2026

SUMMARY OPINION

ROWLAND, JUDGE:

¶1 The State of Oklahoma appeals the district court’s suppression order, suppressing Appellee Cody Owen Russell’s statements to police in Kay County District Court Case No. CF-2024-67. ¹ After ruling that Russell was in custody under Miranda²while standing outside his house as a search warrant was executed inside, the Honorable David R. Bandy, Associate District Judge, suppressed all of Russell’s unwarned statements made to police during the search, ruling from the bench:

I’m going to grant the suppression of any statements by the defendant. I think he believed that he was not free to leave. . . . I want to make it abundantly clear that this Court finds absolutely no wrongdoing on behalf of the Blackwell Police Department at all. My ruling only goes to the fact that I believe that the facts surrounding what I just heard, that the defendant didn’t feel free to go. So that’s the only ruling.

¶2 We find that the district court abused its discretion by (1) employing the wrong legal standard for custody under Miranda, and (2) analyzing the issue from Russell’s subjective viewpoint rather than from an objective viewpoint. See State v. Roberson, 2021 OK CR 16, ¶ 4, 492 P.3d 620, 622 (reviewing rulings in state appeals for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we reverse.

MCKELVY v. STATE
2026 OK CR 14
Case Number: F-2024-728
Decided: 04/09/2026
Mandate Issued: 04/09/2026

SUMMARY OPINION

ROWLAND, JUDGE:

¶1 On September 6, 2023, Appellant McKelvy, represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to Grand Larceny (21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 1705) in Kiowa County District Court Case No. CF-2023-46. The District Court of Kiowa County, the Honorable Rafe Hall, District Judge, ordered Appellant to the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults at the Department of Corrections, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center. On April 3, 2024, after the successful completion of the Delayed Sentencing Program for Youthful Adults, Judge Hall placed Appellant on a five year deferred sentence. Appellant was placed on supervised probation with the District Attorney’s Office for eighteen months. Appellant’s rules and conditions of probation required, in part, that she complete a drug and alcohol assessment, and refrain from possessing or consuming controlled dangerous substances.

¶2 The State filed an application to accelerate deferred judgment on August 12, 2024. The application alleged Appellant violated the terms and conditions of her probation by testing positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine on August 7, 2024. A hearing on the State’s application was held on September 4, 2024. Judge Hall accelerated the deferred judgment and sentenced Appellant to a five year suspended sentence.

¶3 From this judgment and sentence, McKelvy appeals, raising a sole proposition of error:

Because a single failed drug test amounts only to a “technical violation” of the conditions of a deferred sentence, the trial court was without authority to enter judgment of guilt against McKelvy and proceed to sentencing.

¶4 Appellant argues that the trial court had no legal authority to enter a judgment of guilt against her, based on a technical violation of the rules and conditions of her deferment. In support of her argument, Appellant points to the language of 22 O.S.Supp.2021, § 991c(G), which states, “upon any violation of the deferred judgment, other than a technical violation, the court may enter a judgment of guilt and proceed as provided in Section 991a of this title or may modify any condition imposed.” Id.

…

DECISION

¶15 The entry of judgment and five year suspended sentence in Kiowa County District Court Case No. CF-2023-46 is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2026), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

STEEL v. STATE
2026 OK CR 13
Case Number: F-2024-797
Decided: 03/12/2026
Mandate Issued: 03/12/2026

¶1 Appellant, John Anthony Steel, appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of McCurtain County, Case No. CF-2023-108, Lewd or Indecent Proposal to Child Under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2022, §1123(A)(1).

¶2 The Honorable Emily Maxwell, District Judge, presided over the bench trial. At the conclusion of trial, Judge Maxwell found Mr. Steel guilty. At formal sentencing Judge Maxwell sentenced Mr. Steel to the maximum of ten years imprisonment and denied credit for time served. ¹ John Anthony Steel appeals his judgment and sentence and raises the following issue:

I. whether there was sufficient evidence that Appellant proposed “unlawful sexual relations or intercourse with any person” under the plain meaning of those terms.

¶3 We affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.

IN RE: REVISION OF PORTION OF THE RULES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
2026 OK CR 12
Case Number: CCAD-2026-3
Decided: 03/09/2026

¶1 We find it necessary that Rule 1.7 should be revised to reflect the correct and current address of the Clerk of this Court. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1051(B) of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, we hereby revise, adopt, promulgate, and republish Rule 1.7, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2026), as set forth in the following attachment (~~strikethrough~~ denotes deleted words, underline denotes added words).

¶2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that these revisions shall become effective on the date of this order.

IN RE: ADOPTION OF THE 2026 REVISIONS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS-CRIMINAL (SECOND EDITION)
2026 OK CR 11
Case Number: CCAD-2026-2
Decided: 03/06/2026

¶1 On September 19 and December 5, 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 reports and recommendations by the Committee for the adoption of the proposed 2026 revisions to the Uniform Jury Instructions. Pursuant to 12 O.S.2021, § 577.1, the Court accepts the reports and finds the revisions should be adopted.

TERRY, et al. v. GENTNER DRUMMOND & VICKI BEHENNA
2026 OK CR 10
Case Number: CQ-2025-860
Decided: 03/05/2026
Mandate Issued: 03/05/2026

¶1 Before this Court is the October 24, 2025 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit entered in its pending appeal styled Terry, et al. v. Drummond, et al., Case No. 24-6046. The current order is a continuation of a previous order certifying a question of law that we answered in Terry v. Drummond, 2025 OK CR 11, ___ P.3d ___ (Terry I).

¶2 The current order from the Court of Appeals explains that based on our opinion in Terry I, “additional questions of state law–both identified in the original certification order and key to the resolution of this appeal–remain outstanding,” and that our answer to these new questions “may be determinative of the case at hand.”

…

¶19 Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2026), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

ACOSTA v. STATE
2026 OK CR 9
Case Number: PC-2024-942
Decided: 02/24/2026
Mandate Issued: 02/24/2026

ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

¶1 Petitioner, through counsel, appeals the order of the District Court of Oklahoma County denying his application for post-conviction relief in Case No. CF-2019-1712. In November 2021, a jury convicted Petitioner of Robbery with a Firearm and Aggravated Assault and Battery. He was sentenced to terms of imprisonment totaling thirty years. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See Acosta v. State, No. F-2021-1434 (Okl.Cr. February 9, 2023) (not for publication).

¶2 On May 9, 2024, Petitioner filed his first application for post-conviction relief with the Oklahoma County District Court. Petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel on direct appeal. On October 1, 2024, the District Court denied Petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief stating (1) Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel were barred by res judicata and waiver ¹ and (2) pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1080.1, Petitioner was barred from filing for post-conviction relief because he failed to file his application within one year of the date in which the judgment of conviction became final. The District Court determined that Petitioner’s appeal became final on February 9, 2023, and therefore had one year from that date to file any claims in a post-conviction appeal.

¶3 Petitioner argues that “finality” and the “conclusion of direct review” include the ninety days a litigant has to petition the Supreme Court under Sup. Ct. R. 13(1). Petitioner points to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(2023) and reasons that Section 1080.1(A)(1) appears to be modeled on this federal statute, which establishes a one-year and ninety day statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition attacking a state judgment. Therefore, Petitioner contends he had one year and ninety days to apply for post-conviction relief. February 9, 2023, plus ninety days would mean Petitioners’ judgment and sentence did not become final until May 10, 2024, making his filing timely. We disagree.

¶4 Title 22, Section 1080.1(A)(1) states:

A. A one-year period of limitation shall apply to the filing of any application for post-conviction relief, whether an original application or a subsequent application. The limitation period shall run from the latest of:

1. The date on which the judgment of conviction or revocation of suspended sentence became final by the conclusion of the direct review by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals or the expiration of the time for seeking such review by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

Section 1080.1 appears to be modeled after 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2023), which provides a limitations period for filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal courts. The language employed in both statutes is similar but not identical. However, this Court need not consider the similarities between the two statutes because the plain language in Section 1080.1(A)(1) indicates the clear intent of the Legislature, that for purposes of imposing the one-year statute of limitation, a state judgment and sentence is considered final upon the conclusion of direct review by this Court.

PENA v. STATE
2026 OK CR 8
Case Number: F-2024-512
Decided: 02/19/2026
Mandate Issued: 02/19/2026

O P I N I O N

ROWLAND, JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant Jesus Efren Pena appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Craig County, Case No. CF-2022 107, for Acquiring Proceeds from Drug Activity, in violation of 63 O.S.2021, § 2-503.1(A). ¹ The Honorable Shawn S. Taylor, District Judge, presided over Pena’s jury trial and sentenced him in accordance with the jury’s verdict to eight years imprisonment and a $50,000.00 fine, with credit for time served. Pena raises eight issues for review:

1. whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the concealed currency in his car was derived from or intended to be used to facilitate a drug crime;

2. whether the district court’s instruction on the elements of acquiring proceeds from drug activity relieved the State of its burden to prove the currency was derived from a drug crime;

3. whether the district court plainly erred by permitting drug courier-profile testimony as substantive evidence of guilt;

4. whether the district court erred in admitting the testimony of the State’s expert;

5. whether the district court’s remark during jury selection requires reversal;

6. whether prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial;

7. whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and

8. whether an accumulation of errors rendered his trial unfair.

IN RE: ADDITION OF A NEW RULE TO THE RULES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
2026 OK CR 7
Case Number: CCAD-2026-1
Decided: 02/18/2026

ORDER ADOPTING NEW PROCEDURAL RULE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

¶1 Recognizing the novel and rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (“generative AI”) and its use in the practice of law, as well as its potential to produce misinformation or even to hallucinate, ¹ we find that a Rule should be adopted by this Court governing the use of generative AI in drafting any document for filing in this Court. Pursuant to Section 41 of Title 20 and Section 1051 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, we hereby add, adopt, and promulgate this new Rule of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2026), set forth as follows:

Section I. GENERAL RULES OF THE COURT AND DEFINITIONS

Rule 1.17 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

A. Use. When generative artificial intelligence (“generative AI”) has been used in the drafting of any document for filing in this Court, the party, or their counsel, shall ensure that any portion of the document produced or modified by generative AI, whether in whole or in part, has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document.

B. Definition. For purposes of this Rule, “generative artificial intelligence” or “generative AI” is defined as any type of artificial intelligence that generates content or data in response to a prompt or query by a user.

C. Sanctions. Failure to comply with the above requirements may result in the imposition of sanctions by this Court including, but not limited to, waiver of the affected issue(s) on appeal, striking of a non-compliant document from the record, and/or a finding of contempt.

RADFORD v. STATE
2026 OK CR 6
Case Number: F-2025-330
Decided: 02/05/2026
Mandate Issued: 02/05/2026

MUSSEMAN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant, Troy Radford, appeals the denial of his motion seeking pretrial immunity from prosecution pursuant to 21 O.S.2021, § 1289.25(D) (Stand Your Ground) from the District Court of Caddo County, Case No. CF-2022-238. At the time of the hearing, Appellant was charged with one count of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2021, § 652.

¶2 The Honorable Kory Kirkland, District Judge, presided over Appellant’s immunity hearing. Judge Kirkland found Appellant failed to meet his burden of proof and denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss due to immunity. Appellant timely appealed, raising two propositions.

¶3 We affirm the trial court’s order denying immunity pursuant to Title 21, Section 1289.25(D) and (F).

BATTEE v. STATE
2026 OK CR 5
Case Number: F-2023-930
Decided: 02/05/2026
Mandate Issued: 02/05/2026

MUSSEMAN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant, Trymel Keith Battee, appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Choctaw County, Case No. CF 2021 67, Count 1, Conjoint Robbery, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 800.

¶2 The Honorable Jana K. Wallace, Associate District Judge, presided over Appellant’s jury trial where the jury found him guilty and assessed punishment at thirty years imprisonment. The trial court sentenced Appellant according to the jury’s verdict, suspending all but the first twenty years. 1 It is from this Judgment and Sentence that Appellant now appeals, raising the following the following issues:

I. whether Appellant was denied a fair trial because the trial judge failed to disqualify herself or disclose that she was seeking employment with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) during Appellant’s trial; and
II. whether the district court committed plain error by admitting the obviously unreliable in court identification based on repeated post crime viewing of pictures witnesses were told were Appellant.
We affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.

STATE v. CRAWFORD
2026 OK CR 4
Case Number: S-2024-444
Decided: 02/05/2026
Mandate Issued: 02/05/2026

MUSSEMAN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:

¶1 Appellee, Antonio Rahsawn Crawford, was charged in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2023-3455, with Count 1: Child Abuse by Injury, in violation of 21 O.S.2021, § 843.5(A), a felony. Prior to trial, the State filed a Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Other Acts pursuant to 12 O.S.2021, § 2404(B). 1 After a hearing on this motion, the Honorable Michelle Keely, District Judge, denied the State’s request. The State of Oklahoma seeks to appeal this pretrial ruling pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1053(6).

¶2 Upon receipt of the parties’ briefs, this Court issued an order setting the case for oral argument and requesting supplemental briefs from both parties regarding this Court’s jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal. Oral argument was held on June 12, 2025, after which this Court took the matter under advisement.

¶3 We hold that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the State’s appeal under both Sections 1053(5) and 1053(6) of Title 22.

STATE v. LUEVANO
2026 OK CR 3
Case Number: S-2024-402
Decided: 01/29/2026
Mandate Issued: 01/29/2026

¶1 The State of Oklahoma charged Appellee, Sergio Luevano, by amended Information in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF–2022–3090, with Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2021, § 645. ¹ Luevano was bound over on this charge at preliminary hearing. The District Court thereafter held a pretrial Jackson-Denno hearing to determine the voluntariness of Luevano’s statement to police in this case. ² At the conclusion of the hearing, which included testimony from the interviewing officer, Giovanni De La Paz of the Tulsa Police Department, and Pilar Post, a certified courtroom Spanish translator, the Honorable Michelle Keely, District Judge, ruled that Luevano’s statement to the police must be suppressed. Specifically, the district court found that Officer De La Paz’s Spanish translation of the Miranda³ warnings to Luevano was defective, failed to convey the substance of his rights, and under the totality of the circumstances presented resulted in an invalid waiver.

¶2 Appellant, the State of Oklahoma, now appeals. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1053(5). For the reasons discussed below, we REVERSE the District Court’s ruling.

JACOBS v. STATE
2026 OK CR 2
Case Number: F-2024-903
Decided: 02/05/2026
Mandate Issued: 02/05/2026

LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant, James Wesley Jacobs, Jr., was tried by jury and convicted in the District Court of Comanche County, Case No. CF-2021-172 of Count 1, First Degree Manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711, and Count 2, Assault and Battery, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2019, § 644(B). 1 The Honorable Grant Sheperd, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to forty years imprisonment and payment of a $10,000.00 fine on Count 1 and ninety days imprisonment on Count 2, in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

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

I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT PERMITTED AN INCORRECT AND CONFUSING INSTRUCTION TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. THIS INCORRECT AND CONFUSING INSTRUCTION IMPROPERLY PERMITTED THE JURY TO CONSIDER IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF GUILT.
II. MR. JACOBS RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE II, § 20 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.
¶3 After thorough consideration of these propositions 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.

NAPOLEON v. STATE
2026 OK CR 1
Case Number: F-2024-639
Decided: 1/15/2026
Mandate Issued: 1/15/2026

¶1 Appellant, Wang Zou, was tried by the Court and convicted in the District Court of Craig County, Case No. CF-2022-91 of: Count 1, Cultivation of a Controlled Substance, in violation of 63 O.S.2021, § 2-509; Count 2, Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, in violation of 63 O.S.2021, § 2-415(B); Count 3, Possession of CDS Without Tax Stamp, in violation of 68 O.S.2021, § 450.8; and Count 4, Maintaining a Place for Keeping or Selling Controlled Dangerous Substances, in violation of 63 O.S.2021, § 2-404. The trial court found Appellant guilty on all counts and imposed sentences of five years imprisonment on Count 1, ten years imprisonment on Count 2, five years imprisonment on Count 3, and five years imprisonment on Count 4. The court suspended all sentences and ordered the sentences in Counts 1 and 2 to run consecutively and the sentences in Counts 3 and 4 to run concurrently.

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

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE STATUTE ALLOWING “OTHER PENALTIES” FOR VIOLATIONS AS A BASIS TO INSTIGATE A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WHEN THE INTENDED APPLICATION OF THIS STATUTE IS FOR SEPARATE AND UNRELATED CRIMINAL CONDUCT, NOT FOR A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE GROWING OF MARIJUANA.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO PROPERLY CONSIDER THE AMBIGUITY OF THE LAWS AT THE TIME THE ALLEGED OFFENSE TOOK PLACE, WHICH FURTHER DEMONSTRATES THE LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT. THE RULE OF LENITY APPLIES RENDERING THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY APPLYING A STRICT ADHERENCE STANDARD THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY LAW AND WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE LEGISLATION AS SET FORTH BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ASSERTING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS [SIC] WHEN OKLAHOMA’S MEDICAL MARIJUANA STATUTES PROVIDE A SPECIFIC REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND MANDATE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS FOR LICENSE VIOLATIONS BY THE OKLAHOMA MEDICAL MARIJUANA AUTHORITY (OMMA).

V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS [SIC] HAD CRIMINAL INTENT DUE TO A LACK OF COMPLIANCE.

VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ASSERTING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BEFORE THE STATE EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY FAILING TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE THE DEFENDANTS [SIC] VALIDLY ISSUED MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSES.

VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY APPLYING AN UNCLEAR AND UNDEFINED STANDARD OF COMPLIANCE UNDER OKLAHOMA’S MEDICAL MARIJUANA STATUTES AND FAILED TO ESTABLISH WHAT STANDARD OR THRESHOLD OF COMPLIANCE WAS NECESSARY FOR A LICENSEE TO OPERATE LAWFULLY, LEADING TO AN IMPROPER AND UNLAWFUL CONVICTION.

VIII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY APPLYING A STRICT ADHERENCE STANDARD THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY LAW AND WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE LEGISLATION AS SET FORTH BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

Posted in 2026, Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals