What a stupid waste of resources!!!!
from reading the appeal... it's patently clear she is user/addict not a drug kingpin. how absurd to give someone life without parole for being a drug addict.
yes that is the law... which happens to be broken!
-----------------
Oklahoma Public Legal Research System
Sponsored by the
Oklahoma Attorney General´s Office
using CNIDR Isearch-cgi 1.20.06 (File: 131472.html)
ENTRY_DATE: 101010
APPELLANT: Sheila Ann Devereux
APPELLEE: State of Oklahoma
JURISDICTION: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
HEARING_DATE: September 30, 2010
TEXT_OF_RULE:
( Lewis )
Not Published
OPINION
Appellant, Sheila Ann Devereux, was charged conjointly with Earnest Allen Butler with Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (cocaine base) in violation of 63 O.S. 415 (2004), and Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia in violation of 63 O.S. 405 (B) (2004), in the District Court of Tulsa County, case number CF-2005-373. A jury trial was held before the Honorable P. Thomas Thornbrugh, District Judge. The jury found Devereux guilty on both counts, and, during the second stage, found that Devereux had two prior felony drug convictions. The jury sentenced Devereux to life without the possibility of parole and a $25,000 fine on Trafficking and one (1) year in the county jail on the paraphernalia charge. Judge Thornbrugh sentenced Devereux in accordance with the jury verdict. From the Judgment and Sentence Devereux has perfected her appeal to this Court.
I.
A search warrant was served at a dwelling house in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Officers found Devereux in the bathroom surrounded by crack pipes and syringes. A total of about six syringes and ten crack pipes were found in the bathroom. It was obvious that she had been flushing things down the toilet. When officers entered the house, they found the owner of the house and co-defendant Earnest Allen Butler walking out of a bedroom.
During the search, officers found 6.28 grams of cocaine base hidden above the kitchen sink above a ceiling tile. The cocaine was in small plastic baggies, which were contained in a pill bottle. Officers also found .46 grams of cocaine base stashed in an inhaler which was on a table next to the bed.
Officers questioned Devereux at the scene and she said that she had been living there for a couple of months. She told officers that she assisted Butler in bringing customers to the house to buy drugs in exchange for free rent at the house.
During the search, officers also found, in the bedroom, some "Super N," which is niacin used to dilute pure cocaine for sale, and two boxes which once contained digital scales. In the kitchen, along with the cocaine base, officers found two digital scales and three boxes of baggies in the cabinet. Some of the baggies had their corners removed for use as crack cocaine containers.
Butler testified at trial, during the defense case. He testified that he shared his bed with Devereux, and he provided her with crack cocaine. He admitted the drugs in the kitchen were his, and testified that Devereux knew there were drugs in the house, but he would never tell Devereux where he kept his drugs, because she was an addict.
II.
In propositions one and two, Devereux attacks the sufficiency of the evidence for the crime of trafficking in cocaine base, which requires a knowing possession of cocaine base in an amount not less than five grams. 63 O.S. 415 (2004). Devereux claims, in proposition one, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that she possessed cocaine at the time of her arrest and, in proposition two, claims that the trial court erred in denying the motion to quash after preliminary hearing.
With regard to the preliminary hearing, this Court reviews the denial of a motion to quash for an abuse of discretion. Manning v. State, 1981 OK CR 75, 4, 630 P.2d 327, 329; Turner v. State, 1976 OK CR 108, 6, 549 P.2d 1346, 1348. "The purpose of preliminary hearing is to establish probable cause that a crime was committed and probable cause that the defendant committed that crime." 22 O.S. 258 (2003).
Evidence presented at preliminary hearing showed that officers of the Tulsa Police Department served the search warrant and found Devereux locked in the bathroom flushing the toilet. Inside this bathroom, officers found several crack pipes and syringes. Devereux told officers that she had lived at the house for two months and she assisted in selling drugs by getting customers to come to the house so they could purchase drugs from Butler. Butler was found exiting a bedroom.
~
V.
In propositions five and six, Devereux argues her life without parole sentence is excessive and violates both the Oklahoma and Federal prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. She asks this court, in proposition six, to modify her conviction to a lesser offense and give her a sentence no longer than that received by the co-defendant. In our analysis of these propositions we will also consider the brief filed by amicus curiae which argues that the life without parole sentence violates the prohibition against "cruel or unusual" punishment found in the Oklahoma Constitution and urges this Court to examine common law and international law in interpreting this prohibition.
At sentencing, Devereux's counsel argued against such a harsh sentence, and urged the trial court to exercise its constitutional authority, and enter a sentence contrary to that espoused by the legislature. The trial court declined stating that, "what you ask of this Court is to do my will, not exercise my judicial duty. And that I won't do."
Judges certainly have the duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Oklahoma, by ruling that an act of the legislature, which violates either one or both of these bedrock documents, should be stricken. In this case, however, the trial court properly exercised its judicial duty in sentencing Devereux to the punishment authorized by the trafficking statute.
Our previous cases clearly state that the mandatory punishment of life without the possibility of parole for the crime of trafficking, after previous conviction of two or more felony violations of any provision of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act is neither cruel nor unusual and does not run afoul of the United States or Oklahoma Constitutions. Randolph v. State, 2010 OK CR 2, 34, 231 P.3d 672, 683, Ott v. State, 1998 OK CR 51, 12, 967 P.2d 472, 477, Dodd v. State, 1994 OK CR 51, 12-17, 879 P.2d 822, 826-27.
Devereux urges this Court to examine her case in light of the facts presented at trial by arguing that life without parole might not be cruel and unusual for a large scale drug dealer, but for someone like Devereux, who is merely a drug addict, it is cruel and unusual.
This Court will not presume that the legislature has done a vain thing in enacting this mandatory punishment. See K.M.C. v. State, 2009 OK CR 29, 9, 221 P.3d 735, 738. Certainly, in its wisdom, the legislature understood that persons convicted of trafficking after having two prior drug felonies deserved the punishment of life without parole, regardless of the facts of their successive history of offenses. See Dodd, 1994 OK CR 51, 16, 879 P.2d at 827. Individualized sentencing, furthermore, is not mandated in non-capital cases, and mandatory sentences are permissible. Id. 13, at 826, citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 993-96, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 2701-02, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).
The crime of trafficking is a very serious offense. And a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a defendant convicted of this offense, after previously having been convicted of two felony drug offenses, is not grossly disproportionate, as long as the threshold requirements are met. Even if Oklahoma is "the only State which imposes a sentence of life without parole for this offense does not automatically render the punishment grossly disproportionate." Dodd, 1994 OK CR 51, 16, 879 P.2d at 827, citing Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 281, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1143, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980).
We find, therefore, that Devereux's punishment is neither cruel nor unusual. We further find that Devereux's sentence is not so unjust, as she argues in proposition six, to cause this Court to modify the crime for which she was convicted in order to modify her sentence to one more "proportionate" to her co-defendant's sentence and the facts of her case. Moreover, under the appropriate standard, we find that sentence does not shock this Court's conscience. Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, 5, 34 P.3d 148, 149.
The relief requested in propositions five and six of Devereux's brief, and in the brief of Amicus Curiae is denied.
DECISION
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. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY THE HONORABLE P. THOMAS THORNBRUGH, DISTRICT JUDGE
(FOOTNOTES):
1 Constructive possession is shown by evidence that the accused had knowledge of the presence of the contraband and the power or intent to control the disposition or use of the contraband. Doyle v. State, 1988 OK CR 147, 7, 759 P.2d 223, 224.
OPINION BY: LEWIS, J.
C. JOHNSON, P.J.: Concurs in Results
A. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: Concurs in Results
LUMPKIN, J.: Concurs
SMITH, J.: Concurs
CITATIONS: Court of Criminal Appeals - F-2009-0219 (2010)
PUBLISHED: 0
http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/ifetch?okcca+696464249201+F
from reading the appeal... it's patently clear she is user/addict not a drug kingpin. how absurd to give someone life without parole for being a drug addict.
yes that is the law... which happens to be broken!
-----------------
Oklahoma Public Legal Research System
Sponsored by the
Oklahoma Attorney General´s Office
using CNIDR Isearch-cgi 1.20.06 (File: 131472.html)
ENTRY_DATE: 101010
APPELLANT: Sheila Ann Devereux
APPELLEE: State of Oklahoma
JURISDICTION: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
HEARING_DATE: September 30, 2010
TEXT_OF_RULE:
( Lewis )
Not Published
OPINION
Appellant, Sheila Ann Devereux, was charged conjointly with Earnest Allen Butler with Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (cocaine base) in violation of 63 O.S. 415 (2004), and Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia in violation of 63 O.S. 405 (B) (2004), in the District Court of Tulsa County, case number CF-2005-373. A jury trial was held before the Honorable P. Thomas Thornbrugh, District Judge. The jury found Devereux guilty on both counts, and, during the second stage, found that Devereux had two prior felony drug convictions. The jury sentenced Devereux to life without the possibility of parole and a $25,000 fine on Trafficking and one (1) year in the county jail on the paraphernalia charge. Judge Thornbrugh sentenced Devereux in accordance with the jury verdict. From the Judgment and Sentence Devereux has perfected her appeal to this Court.
I.
A search warrant was served at a dwelling house in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Officers found Devereux in the bathroom surrounded by crack pipes and syringes. A total of about six syringes and ten crack pipes were found in the bathroom. It was obvious that she had been flushing things down the toilet. When officers entered the house, they found the owner of the house and co-defendant Earnest Allen Butler walking out of a bedroom.
During the search, officers found 6.28 grams of cocaine base hidden above the kitchen sink above a ceiling tile. The cocaine was in small plastic baggies, which were contained in a pill bottle. Officers also found .46 grams of cocaine base stashed in an inhaler which was on a table next to the bed.
Officers questioned Devereux at the scene and she said that she had been living there for a couple of months. She told officers that she assisted Butler in bringing customers to the house to buy drugs in exchange for free rent at the house.
During the search, officers also found, in the bedroom, some "Super N," which is niacin used to dilute pure cocaine for sale, and two boxes which once contained digital scales. In the kitchen, along with the cocaine base, officers found two digital scales and three boxes of baggies in the cabinet. Some of the baggies had their corners removed for use as crack cocaine containers.
Butler testified at trial, during the defense case. He testified that he shared his bed with Devereux, and he provided her with crack cocaine. He admitted the drugs in the kitchen were his, and testified that Devereux knew there were drugs in the house, but he would never tell Devereux where he kept his drugs, because she was an addict.
II.
In propositions one and two, Devereux attacks the sufficiency of the evidence for the crime of trafficking in cocaine base, which requires a knowing possession of cocaine base in an amount not less than five grams. 63 O.S. 415 (2004). Devereux claims, in proposition one, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that she possessed cocaine at the time of her arrest and, in proposition two, claims that the trial court erred in denying the motion to quash after preliminary hearing.
With regard to the preliminary hearing, this Court reviews the denial of a motion to quash for an abuse of discretion. Manning v. State, 1981 OK CR 75, 4, 630 P.2d 327, 329; Turner v. State, 1976 OK CR 108, 6, 549 P.2d 1346, 1348. "The purpose of preliminary hearing is to establish probable cause that a crime was committed and probable cause that the defendant committed that crime." 22 O.S. 258 (2003).
Evidence presented at preliminary hearing showed that officers of the Tulsa Police Department served the search warrant and found Devereux locked in the bathroom flushing the toilet. Inside this bathroom, officers found several crack pipes and syringes. Devereux told officers that she had lived at the house for two months and she assisted in selling drugs by getting customers to come to the house so they could purchase drugs from Butler. Butler was found exiting a bedroom.
~
V.
In propositions five and six, Devereux argues her life without parole sentence is excessive and violates both the Oklahoma and Federal prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. She asks this court, in proposition six, to modify her conviction to a lesser offense and give her a sentence no longer than that received by the co-defendant. In our analysis of these propositions we will also consider the brief filed by amicus curiae which argues that the life without parole sentence violates the prohibition against "cruel or unusual" punishment found in the Oklahoma Constitution and urges this Court to examine common law and international law in interpreting this prohibition.
At sentencing, Devereux's counsel argued against such a harsh sentence, and urged the trial court to exercise its constitutional authority, and enter a sentence contrary to that espoused by the legislature. The trial court declined stating that, "what you ask of this Court is to do my will, not exercise my judicial duty. And that I won't do."
Judges certainly have the duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Oklahoma, by ruling that an act of the legislature, which violates either one or both of these bedrock documents, should be stricken. In this case, however, the trial court properly exercised its judicial duty in sentencing Devereux to the punishment authorized by the trafficking statute.
Our previous cases clearly state that the mandatory punishment of life without the possibility of parole for the crime of trafficking, after previous conviction of two or more felony violations of any provision of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act is neither cruel nor unusual and does not run afoul of the United States or Oklahoma Constitutions. Randolph v. State, 2010 OK CR 2, 34, 231 P.3d 672, 683, Ott v. State, 1998 OK CR 51, 12, 967 P.2d 472, 477, Dodd v. State, 1994 OK CR 51, 12-17, 879 P.2d 822, 826-27.
Devereux urges this Court to examine her case in light of the facts presented at trial by arguing that life without parole might not be cruel and unusual for a large scale drug dealer, but for someone like Devereux, who is merely a drug addict, it is cruel and unusual.
This Court will not presume that the legislature has done a vain thing in enacting this mandatory punishment. See K.M.C. v. State, 2009 OK CR 29, 9, 221 P.3d 735, 738. Certainly, in its wisdom, the legislature understood that persons convicted of trafficking after having two prior drug felonies deserved the punishment of life without parole, regardless of the facts of their successive history of offenses. See Dodd, 1994 OK CR 51, 16, 879 P.2d at 827. Individualized sentencing, furthermore, is not mandated in non-capital cases, and mandatory sentences are permissible. Id. 13, at 826, citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 993-96, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 2701-02, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).
The crime of trafficking is a very serious offense. And a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a defendant convicted of this offense, after previously having been convicted of two felony drug offenses, is not grossly disproportionate, as long as the threshold requirements are met. Even if Oklahoma is "the only State which imposes a sentence of life without parole for this offense does not automatically render the punishment grossly disproportionate." Dodd, 1994 OK CR 51, 16, 879 P.2d at 827, citing Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 281, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1143, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980).
We find, therefore, that Devereux's punishment is neither cruel nor unusual. We further find that Devereux's sentence is not so unjust, as she argues in proposition six, to cause this Court to modify the crime for which she was convicted in order to modify her sentence to one more "proportionate" to her co-defendant's sentence and the facts of her case. Moreover, under the appropriate standard, we find that sentence does not shock this Court's conscience. Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, 5, 34 P.3d 148, 149.
The relief requested in propositions five and six of Devereux's brief, and in the brief of Amicus Curiae is denied.
DECISION
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. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY THE HONORABLE P. THOMAS THORNBRUGH, DISTRICT JUDGE
(FOOTNOTES):
1 Constructive possession is shown by evidence that the accused had knowledge of the presence of the contraband and the power or intent to control the disposition or use of the contraband. Doyle v. State, 1988 OK CR 147, 7, 759 P.2d 223, 224.
OPINION BY: LEWIS, J.
C. JOHNSON, P.J.: Concurs in Results
A. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: Concurs in Results
LUMPKIN, J.: Concurs
SMITH, J.: Concurs
CITATIONS: Court of Criminal Appeals - F-2009-0219 (2010)
PUBLISHED: 0
http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/ifetch?okcca+696464249201+F
