Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals | 2026
Decisions
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.
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.
¶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.