State v. Ramos, 2013 OK CR 3

Ramos brothers, Guatemalan nationals, were charged with first-degree murder in Woodward County, Oklahoma.
Miranda warnings were given to each in Spanish after arrest; they separately confessed to killing the decedent.
Defendants filed a Motion to Suppress confessions on the ground they were not informed of consular rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention (VCCR).
District Court suppressed the evidence, ruling that failure to notify consulate violated Article 86 of the VCCR.
State appealed under 22 O.S.8upp.2008, § 1058(5); the issue centered on the proper remedy for a VCCR Article 86 violation.
Supreme Court precedent (Sanchez-Llamas) later held suppression is not a remedy for Article 86 violations; case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether suppression is available as a remedy for a VCCR Article 86 violation	State argues suppression is an available remedy.	Ramos argues suppression is required under Torres/VCCR.	Suppression is not an available remedy.
Whether Sanchez-Llamas governs the remedy question	State relies on Torres; Sanchez-Llamas controls.	Ramos contends Sanchez-Llamas does not apply.	Sanchez-Llamas controls; no suppression remedy.
Whether Article 36 rights can be raised as part of a voluntariness challenge	Not necessary to address here.	Article 86 rights can be raised in a broader voluntariness challenge.	Article 36 violation may be raised in a Jackson v. Denno voluntariness challenge.

Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006) (suppressing evidence not remedy for Article 86 violation; consular notification rights safeguarded by other protections)
Torres v. State, 120 P.3d 1185 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (addressed VCCR; not a suppression remedy)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (standard for assessing voluntariness evidence in state court)