State v. Delso
2013 OK CR 5
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellee Logan Delso was charged in Okmulgee County District Court with Use of a Vehicle in the Discharge of a Weapon (Count I) and Felony Discharging Firearm into a Dwelling (Count II).
Delso waived the preliminary hearing and right to be arraigned within 30 days, then pled not guilty and proceeded to trial.
- Prior to trial, Delso moved to dismiss alleging discovery materials failed to prove the offense elements; defense argued no bullet holes in the dwelling, only in a detached garage, and the garage was not part of the dwelling.
- The State stipulated the garage was detached but argued other discovery materials showed shots at the house and Delso confessed to shooting at the residence; the trial court dismissed Count II as lacking sufficient evidence.
- The State appealed under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(4); the court below dismissed Count II, prompting reversal and remand.
- The appellate court held the motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence should be treated as a motion to quash, and because there was no evidence in the record (Delso had waived the preliminary hearing), the district court abused its discretion in sustaining the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing Count II. | State argues discovery shows shots at residence; evidence supports Count II. | Delso argues there is insufficient evidence tying the dwelling to the shooting; garage not part of dwelling. | District court erred; reversal and remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitman v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 423 P.2d 740 (1967 OK CR 12) (preliminary hearing transcript required for motion to quash for insufficient evidence)
- State v. Davis, 823 P.2d 367 (1991 OK CR 123) (state may appeal decision on motion to quash for insufficient evidence)
- State v. Hooley, 269 P.3d 949 (2012 OK CR 3) (abuse of discretion standard on appeal)
- Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 241 P.3d 214 (2010 OK CR 23) (abuse of discretion defined; clearly erroneous conclusions)
- Stouffer v. State, 147 P.3d 245 (2006 OK CR 46) (describes abuse of discretion standards)
- Neloms v. State, 274 P.3d 161 (2012 OK CR 7) (continues standard on review of discretionary rulings)