Tag: Tulsa County

Sentence reduced

TWO [2] DRUG TRAFFICKING CHARGES AFTER 2 PRIOR FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS

Criminal Charge: Two drug trafficking charges after two prior felony drug convictions
Case: State v. Carl Rogers
Court: [CF-06-462] [Tulsa County] and [CF-06-44] [Washington County]
Result: Reduced to Possession with Intent, 15- & 12-year sentences run concurrently

Oklahoma State Courts Network
For more details on this case, open the Docket View.

Summary:

Another case that involved hard litigation to achieve a result involving prison time, Mr. Rogers was first charged in Tulsa County with trafficking in meth. Weeks later he picked up another trafficking meth charge in Washington County. His several prior felony convictions threatened to significantly increase his sentences. The evidence was difficult in both cases.

Trafficking is a severe charge. It is worse even than the so-called “85% crimes” in Oklahoma that require serving 85% of the sentence before discharge, because the trafficking statute denies Department of Corrections “good-time credits”. [See 63 O.S. 2-415 [D][3]]. As a result, a trafficking convict serves about 90% of his sentence before discharge….

Tulsa County quickly offered to plea down to possession with intent to distribute and a 12 year sentence – a sentence that can be discharged in about 5 years. Washington County, however, refused to budge from the trafficking charge and would offer only a 30 year sentence.

It got interesting. After prosecutor Scott Julian reneged on a discovery agreement, Haslam and he exchanged harsh words outside the courtroom and the prosecutor threatened to arrest Haslam unless he apologized. No apology ensued, of course, but the prosecutor referred to the exchange in a hearing with the trial judge weeks later that suggested there had been an earlier, private conversation about it with the judge.

Haslam immediately moved to disqualify the prosecutor and the trial judge. The trial judge wisely removed the prosecutor from the case. Weeks later – after numerous hearings and motions pressing her own disqualification from the case – the judge stepped down from the case, as well.

With a new prosecutor and judge in the case, it quickly settled. Mr. Rogers pled to possession with intent in Rogers County, and his sentence was run concurrent with the Tulsa County sentence imposed weeks earlier. He should discharge both cases in about 5 years.

Deferred Adjudication

FALSE DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP

Criminal Charge: False Declaration of Ownership
Case: State v. John Doe
Court: CF-05-xyz, Tulsa County
Result: Deferred Adjudication

Oklahoma State Courts Network
For more details on this case, open the Docket View.

Summary:

Mr. Doe’s name has been changed because he successfully discharged this deferred adjudication and his case has been expunged. He was charged with false declaration of ownership based on the allegation he fraudulently indicated on a pawn ticket that he owned the guitar he pawned. The State alleged the guitar was stolen and that Mr. Doe knew it.

Haslam negotiated an 18 months deferred adjudication with no jail time.

Case Dismissed

ALLEGED DEPRIVED CHILD AND DHS TAKES CUSTODY OF CHILD

Criminal Case: Alleged Deprived Child and DHS Takes Custody of the Child
Case: In re T.A.
Court: [JD-04-05, Tulsa County]
Result: Case Dismissed


Summary:

Because juvenile matters are confidential by Oklahoma statute, the docket sheet and the identity of the child in this “juvenile deprived” matter cannot be revealed, but Haslam represented T.A.’s 19 year old mother. The State alleged her live-in boyfriend had physically abused T.A., and the Oklahoma Department of Human Services [“OKDHS”] took the child from her because it alleged she permitted the boyfriend to do it.

If you know anything about the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, you won’t be surprised to hear that the night before the OKDHS investigator seized the child from his home, a Tulsa PD officer checked on the child in his home and found him fine. Nonetheless, the investigator alleged he was covered with bruises when she took him the next day. Haslam subpoenaed the radio dispatch audiotapes concerning that police call. The audiotape revealed the officer – who was specifically trained in child abuse investigations – reporting that the mother consented to his personal inspection of the child and that he found no signs of harm. He reported on the radio and in a written report that the child was “happy, well-fed, and alert and perceived no reason to suspect abuse.” Haslam listed this officer, the audiotape and the investigator on his witness and exhibit list for the “adjudication” hearing and sent the list to the prosecutor.

Rather than risk the investigator testifying under oath and contrary to the officer, the State dismissed the case on the day of the hearing and returned T.A. to his mother.