|
Notes of Success |
Tuesday, August 21, 2007 03:57 PM
|
|
|
|
 |
ARRESTED FOR DUI or APC in Oklahoma? |
Notes
of Success
The attorneys of Sifers & Sifers, Oklahoma
DUI Attorneys, fight for their clients everyday
- no
matter the opposition
- no
matter the courthouse
- no
matter the prosecutor
- no
matter the judge.
Listed here are just a few notes of
success.
2007 STARTS OFF GOOD FOR OUR CLIENTS
At of the first of
2007, two (2) of our felony DUI cases in Oklahoma County
District Court came up for final conclusion. Both had reached
the point of the end of any further negotiation. In each case,
the prior DUI that the State was using to enhance the new case
to a felony was from the Oklahoma City Municipal Court. At
pre-trial, we were able to show the DA that in both cases that
the State's evidence to prove the prior conviction was
INSUFFICIENT! In other words, the State COULD NOT prove a
felony if the case actually went to trial. In both instances,
the State amended the charges to MISDEMEANORS and neither of
these clients were convicted of a felony!
CHARLES SIFERS' EFFORTS HELP ALL FUTURE OKLAHOMA DUI
DEFENDANT
Charles has argued
- for almost a decade - that the way the courts treat breath and
blood test refusals in jury trials was unfair to the
defendants. The law provided no jury instruction to the jury
members in a case as to how refusing a test should be
considered. The prosecutors of this State have always argued
that a simple refusal by a defendant meant he KNEW he was guilty
of being under the influence, WITHOUT any further evidence. He
designed an instruction that required the State to prove MORE,
and specifically, to make the State prove that the person KNEW
he was guilty AND that the person refused to take the test so as
to evade or avoid conviction. This instruction further stated
that IF THE STATE DID NOT PROVE this extra stuff, the refusal
COULD NOT be considered by the jury as evidence of guilt. Some
judges had accepted this; some had not. The Gauntlet
published a couple of articles written by Charles that set out
this argument AND the instruction that he designed (See DUI
REFUSALS: Jury Instructions, The Gauntlet, Fall, 2005,
and DUI Jury Trials: More on Refusal Jury Instructions,
The Gauntlet, Spring, 2006). A couple of Tulsa lawyers
borrowed this argument and set of instructions and used them in
a case there. Their case resulted in a conviction which was
appealed. At the end of 2006, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals, the State's highest court in criminal matters, returned
a decision in that Tulsa case that said that an instruction of
the type that Charles had been arguing for years MUST BE given
in future in the every DUI jury trial with a refusal!! And, the
instruction to be given was to be modeled after the very
argument that Charles had been making!! A success story for ALL
involved AND every person from this point forward who is ever
arrested for DUI and refuses the test.
From the Oklahoma Criminal Defense Weekly,
March 19, 2007:
JEFF
SIFERS & CHARLES SIFERS,
OKC, laced them up in Beckham County defending a client
charged with DUI, DUR, and Straddling Lanes. The trial
judge was the Hon. Floyd Haught and the prosecutor was Gina
Webb. Client had two prior DUIs and two prior drug
arrests. In this case, client refused the State's test.
The centerpiece of the State's case was a 45-minute
videotape of the traffic stop and drive to jail which
featured client cussing the arresting officer for a good 30
minutes(!) Charles reports that he filed 22 motions prior
to trial and 4 more motions in limine on the day of
trial (including one dealing with the refusal jury
instruction) and Judge Haught denied them all! Although
Charles conducted voir dire and gave the opening
statement, Jeff stepped up and cross-examined the State's
main law-enforcement witness. How do you know if you've
done a good job on cross-examination? When the prosecutor
mentions in closing argument that she did not know who
testified more, you or the cop witness. Sounds like Jeff is
on the right track. Although it was a close question,
client did not take the stand. The jury came back with a
not guilty on the DUI but guilty on the other two
misdemeanors, proving once again there are few lawyers in
Oklahoma with a more firm grasp on DUI law than Charles, and
now Jeff. Congrats on a good win!
NO CONTROL OF THE CAR
V.M., a
resident of another state, was in Oklahoma City on
business a few months ago and was staying at a local motel.
One evening, he went out to eat (and drink) with
co-workers. On his way back to the motel, he stopped at
a convenience store to buy beer. After he went into the
store, a Highway Patrolman also stopped at this store to
buy gas. This Hi-Po noticed a car (V.M.'s) parked in a
clearly marked handicapped space. When V.M. exited the
store carrying the beer, the Hi-Po saw him walking to
the illegally parked car "unsteady on his feet", open
the car door, hand the beer to the passenger, and start
to sit down in the driver's seat. However, before V.M.
could sit down in the car, the Hi-Po yelled at him to
"come here". V.M. never completed his entry into the
car. He straightened back up and went to the officer.
V.M. was then arrested for Actual Physical Control of a
Motor Vehicle while under the influence of Alcohol
("APC").
The State
tried to revoke his out-of-state driver's license. An
APC charge was filed in Oklahoma County District Court.
The D.A. wanted a conviction and fine (etc).
V.M.
hired Sifers & Sifers to represent him. After the
Department of Public Safety ruled against him on his
license, our office filed a District Court Appeal. At
the appeal, the senior Mr. Sifers showed the judge that,
since V.M. never got into the car, the crime of APC was
never committed and the arrest was therefore invalid.
License returned. A transcript of that trial was
obtained and delivered by Mr. Sifers to the D.A. in the
Oklahoma County District Court criminal case with the
suggestion "to read this". A few days later, the D.A.
outright dismissed the charge. No loss of license. No
conviction (or fine or probation) of the APC.
THE
CONTINUED POWER OF REPUTATION TO BENEFIT OUR CLIENTS:
-- MORE PROOF THAT WHO YOU HIRE CAN MAKE ALL THE
DIFFERENCE --
The
lawyer who represents a person charged with DUI can make
a TON of difference (see
His Reputation Precedes Him
below). More proof of that occurred in July, 2006 for
one of our clients in a case in a southern county of
Oklahoma. BW was charged with two counts: Felony DUI (a
possible 5 year prison sentence) and Felony
possession of Marijuana ("PMJ")(a possible 10 year
prison sentence). The senior Mr. Sifers met with
the Assistant District Attorney prior to the preliminary
hearing on the case. This DA was not, by ANY MEANS,
a "baby lawyer", but had been in private practice for
many years previous to assuming the DA duties of that
county. Mr. Sifers had never met him. After about 30
minutes of negotiation, the DA agreed to dismiss the PMJ.
He offered to close the DUI part of this case, without a
preliminary or a trial, with a one year deferred
sentence and a fine and costs. This was the SHORTEST
deferred sentence on a felony DUI that the senior Mr.
Sifers could remember ever negotiating. As Mr. Sifers
left, the DA said "it was finally good to meet you"
since he had "read so many of (Mr. Sifers') articles on
DUI cases over the years". Yes, who represents you can
make a difference . . . . . . ..
His Reputation Precedes Him
M.M., a college
student, after hitting a parked car and leaving the
scene, was arrested in Weatherford and charged with DUI
in the District Court in that county. This was FOURTH
DUI in three years. It was, amazingly, filed only as a
misdemeanor. At the license hearing, we were able to
prove that the DPS DID NOT have sufficient evidence to
revoke his license (the probable cause was extremely
"thin") and won the license back for him. The assigned
D.A., however, wanted our client to be convicted, do 20
days in the county jail, and pay a large fine. Mr.
Sifers, who does not practice in that county as
frequently as he does in other counties, had never met
this particular D.A. In an effort to be professional and
to introduce himself to this young D.A., Mr. Sifers met
with him at his office. Fully NOT expecting this young
man to agree with him, Mr. Sifers suggested that a
deferred sentence (the case is dismissed at the end of
probation) was the better way to close this case and
avoid a trial for everyone. The D.A. quickly agreed with
Mr. Sifers and the matter was closed with the deferred
sentence. M.M. was NOT convicted of ANYTHING and DID NOT
lose his license, either.
Prior to leaving the courthouse that day (but AFTER he
had gotten the deal for his client!), Mr. Sifers went
back by the D.A.'s office and expressed his surprise to
this young D.A. of his acceptance of Mr. Sifers
suggestion of a deferred sentence for M.M. When he asked
him WHY he went along with it, the D.A.'s only response
was, "I know who you are", turned and walked away.
IS IT A CRIME WHERE THE
OFFICER STOPPED YOU??
The crime of DUI or APC can NOT be committed just
anywhere in the state of Oklahoma. You must be located
on a place where it is prohibited. Until recently, there
were several locations that these crimes COULD NOT be
committed: driveways, private roads, etc. The
legislature DID broaden this some in the 2003-2004
legislative session. However, this question is STILL one
that MUST be answered in defending these cases!
A couple of examples of
how Mr. Sifers has used this technique for his clients
are:
MOBILE HOME PARK STREETS ARE EXEMPT
FROM DUI!
G.F. was arrested by a officer while driving in a
mobile home park. He was on probation for felony DUI at
the time. This new case was ALSO a felony DUI. We
obtained the records of the land where this event
occurred and discovered that these streets were NOT
city, county, OR state roads. They were all private
streets or roads. The traffic statutes of the State - at
that time - did NOT apply to private streets or roads.
Of course, the D.A. would NOT believe this and
prosecuted both the revocation of his probation and the
NEW case as well. The judge overruled our motions to
dismiss both matters.
After a bench trial and conviction of our client, we
appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The
Court agreed with us and released our client within a
week of the published decision. (See
Fenimore v. State).
The legislature - based upon this very case - changed
the statutes the very next legislative term!
YOU CAN’T BE ARRESTED IN A WHEAT FIELD FOR DUI/APC
P.P. had drunk way too much and was attempting to
drive home in a rural area of Oklahoma. He left the road
(unintentionally) and ended up in a wheat field beside
the country road and could not find his way back to the
road. He turned off his car which was now parked in this
wheat field and passed out. A highway patrolman happened
by on his way home from his shift and saw this car in
the field. He found PP and arrested him for Actual
Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle While Under the
Influence of Alcohol ("APC"). An Intoxilyzer 5000 test
showed a .19% result. The was P.P. 13th DUI/APC arrest.
It was filed as a Felony and the District Attorney
wanted him to go to jail for five (5) years!
Our firm showed the DA's office that, under the case
law, the crime of APC (or DUI) could not be committed in
a wheat field. Although not wanting to, the DA agreed
and dismissed the case against PP. The DPS did not agree
and revoked his license. Our firm appealed the decision
and the Oklahoma Court of Appeals agreed with us,
publishing the decision. Consequently through our
efforts, new law was made as
to where these crimes can be committed and an arrest
result therefrom. (See
Post v. DPS)
Even with the legislature’s recently
changes, this is STILL good law and a place where you
can not commit the crime of DUI or APC!
THE TIMELY FILING OF PROPER MOTIONS
In the case of WJ, the OTHER person that our
office represented who had been arrested in the roadblock of the
Village Police, the District Attorney would NOT
discuss any reasonable disposition of the case. We had already
won his driver's license back. The DA wanted a conviction and a
suspended sentence, which would have nullified our license win
and revoked the license anyway. Our office was NOT willing to
allow that to happen to WJ. We had no choice but to set the
matter for trial. In the court in which it was filed, all
motions must be heard by the trial judge just prior to the
matter being tried before a jury. Our office filed 17 motions in
the case to be heard. Of the ten (10) motions that the judge
finally heard, he granted 8 of the 10. The judge granted our
motion to exclude and suppress the video tape of the arrest, the
breath test, the field tests, all post arrest statements of the
client, and all reference to any prior arrests.
See "Summary of Orders".
When we were through, the state had almost no evidence left. We
then urged our motion for directed verdict (insufficient
evidence) and to dismiss the case. With no more evidence left,
the judge dismissed the case. Several "old-time" lawyers who
either watched these motions argued or later heard about this
case, commented that they had not seen such an effective use of
motions in a DUI case in years OR possibly
EVER.
Consequently, of the total of THREE (3) people who were arrested
for DUI in that roadblock, only ONE was ever convicted and lost
his driver's license, and it was the one person in that total
number of persons arrested that our office
DID NOT
represent.
Quote From the Oklahoma Criminal Defense Weekly
newsletter, November, 2006:
"CHARLES & JEFF SIFERS, OKC, share
some of their fine advocacy in recent cases. The
details of these cases were provided to me by
Charles himself and I think have some good tips and
lessons on how to aggressively defend DUI cases
(from one of the very best):
Fun in Municipal Court: Charles
was hired by two clients in separate DUI cases
in Bartlesville Municipal Court (a court not of
record) earlier this year. One client was a
first-time offender from Texas. The other client
was a local with a class B CDL and a previous
non-alcohol felony conviction. The Municipal Court
in Bartlesville does not have a prosecutor. The
arresting officer simply testifies before the
Judge and acts as a de facto City
Attorney. The judge informed Charles, almost
proudly, that there was no plea bargaining in his
court on DUI's; and, since there was no chance of
jail time, the options were to plea to the charge
and receive a fine or have a bench trial. Charles
opted for a bench trial in both cases. As you might
expect, the trials proceeded in a somewhat different
manner regarding the rules of evidence and the
burden of proof like one would expect say, in a
federal courtroom. Charles lost both cases.
What to do? File an appeal in the District Court
and set them for trial. This action forced an
actual lawyer to represent the City who moved ex
parte to have the appeals stricken and called
Charles, complaining about the appeals. Seems such
things are never done in that neck of the
woods. Charles informed the City Attorney that he
was not going to settle for DUI convictions for his
clients. Two weeks ago, Charles received a letter
from the City Attorney offering a proposed J & S for
these appeals that showed the trials had been done,
a finding of not guilty to the DUI occurred, and a
finding of guilt to Reckless Driving with
no probation, etc. Both clients accepted. As for
the license revocation administrative
hearings, Charles tried both of them, winning the
hearing on the client with the CDL and losing the
other hearing, but securing the work permit.
Driver's License Checkpoints:
About a year ago, a prior client was stopped at a
"DL checkpoint" in south OKC. The client (wisely)
hired Charles again. Charles won the District Court
appeal of his license revocation. Judge Croy
stopped just short of ruling
the roadblock unconstitutional in his nine-page
written opinion, but he did rule that the client's
refusal was coerced and set aside the revocation of
the license. What to do in the criminal
case? Charles filed a motion to dismiss and to
suppress the refusal in the criminal case based upon
collateral estoppel/issue preclusion, using the
Order and the transcript of the license appeal.
Charles also filed an alternative motion to dismiss,
arguing the unconstitutional seizure in the
roadblock, based upon the evidence contained in this
Driver's License Appeal transcript.
The criminal case ended up before Judge Glen Jones.
The ADA (of course) did not respond in time and
argued that he had not had sufficient time to
respond to the motions. Judge Jones permitted
briefing on these motions and gave the ADA time to
file a Response Brief. Jeff Sifers (recently minted
lawyer) drafted the Reply and argued the motions
before Judge Jones the week before last. At the end
of his verbal ruling which took close to an hour,
Judge Jones (following much of Jeff's
arguments) granted the alternative motion to
dismiss. The bottom line: license
returned, criminal case dismissed, prosecutor livid.
The Fine Print: Also,
two weeks ago, Charles appeared before Judge Gray in
Oklahoma County representing a client charged with a
second felony DUI. Charles noticed that the Second
Page listed two previous felony DUI convictions
dated May 30, 1996. Charles moved to dismiss the
case because the client could NOT legally be
convicted within 10 years of his
previous conviction (this argument, based upon a
careful reading of the statutes, has been
highlighted in the pages of the OCDW thanks to
Charles). The State, represented by the same ADA
who was defeated in the DL checkpoint case
above, wanted to brief the issue. Judge Gray
announced that the State "was wrong on the law" and
ruled that the case should only be filed as a
misdemeanor. She then gave the State the
opportunity to amend the existing case to a
misdemeanor OR re-file as a misdemeanor.
Charles objected and said that any amendment would
still retain the felony case number(!) Judge Gray
agreed and dismissed the case, telling the
State that if it still wanted to pursue the case, it
had to re-file it under a misdemeanor case number."
**A
FOLLOW-UP NOTE TO THE "FINE PRINT" STORY ABOVE: A
few days after Charles' success on this case,
another lawyer who purports to be a "DUI Lawyer" in
Oklahoma City "borrowed" Charles' argument - and it
looked like even Charles' Motion and Brief out of
our client's court file! - and used it in a case of
his. In ALL fields, it appears, there are leaders
and followers. In DUI Defense in Oklahoma, our
office is the leader.
You need the best Oklahoma DUI Defense Lawyer available to
defend your rights with
"Oklahoma DUI Law"
-
Don' let an Oklahoma DUI Arrest ruin your life
-
Don't let the Oklahoma government take your driver's
license
-
Don't let the Oklahoma government send you to jail
|
If this happens
to YOU
CALL
(405) 232-3388
(888) OKLA-DUI |
 |
**A
conviction
for DUI or APC will likely affect your employment, your
insurance, your family, driver's license, and YOU,
FOREVER!
**Don't trust your life
to just any lawyer, hire Oklahoma's BEST DUI Defense
team.
 |
|
|
 |
|
Oklahoma DUI Blog
|
Western Oklahoma DUI Attorney |
|
Oklahoma City
DUI Lawyer |
|
Oklahoma City, OK
DUI Attorney
Charles L. Sifers
C. Jeffrey Sifers |
|
Oklahoma County
DUI Lawyer |
|
Misdemeanor
DUI/APC |
|
10 days to 1 year
up to $1,000.00 fine
Probation @ $20.00
monthly
Court Costs $800.00
Other Fees $600.00 |
|
Felony DUI/APC |
|
1 to 10 years
Up to $5000.00 fine
Probation @ $40.00
monthly
Court Costs $800.00
Other Fees $600.00 |
|
Aggravated DUI |
|
1 year
probation
Periodic Testing
during probation
480 hours Community
Service
Ignition Interlock
installed on car |
|
on
Oklahoma
DUI |
|
Select the county where your arrest occurred:
|
|
Sifers & Sifers
(405) 232-3388
(888) OKLA-DUI
"The best DUI Defense team in Oklahoma"
Oklahoma DUI
Lawyers-Attorneys
Statewide Representation
including Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Edmond, Norman, El Reno,
Yukon, Shawnee
Guthrie, Logan County, Chandler, Lincoln County
Cleveland County, Canadian County
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County
Oklahoma DUI - Oklahoma APC - Oklahoma DWI
Oklahoma Lawyer - Attorney |
|
|
|
