What the fish?

As far as the courts then tell me how the lawyer we hired wants to quit after showing to one court hearing & his comments after was that they hate him for some reason & then he wants to quit. Reminds me of when they illegally tried to arrest him for something by threatening me to say I seen him with something. When they released me thT next morning but kept him in jail, I had called up to the Sante Fe police department to talk to someone about that case & find out who the arresting officer was & the man pulled it up & all he said was it was a complicated case.
   Well, I bet it is complicated since it was illegal & unjust whatever it was & it was 4 cop cars that came in front of us from 2 different directions & for no reason at all. They even drew pistols & they told me they just wanted to talk to him & pulled him off in a different direction than me. I need to find out what happened because as soon as they done speaking to him is when they tried hard to scare me into saying I witnessed seeing him with something. Now, that would make a complicated case because it itself had no probable cause & something is not right here niether & thats why I put in the motions I did. Because from what I understand the D.A. is not supposed to prosecute a case with no probable cause. And with my motions then there is no doubt about it they know there was none.
   So now they set it for trial & that court hearing nobody even seen & we know nothing about it. We have called the lawyer many times & there no responce back.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,            )

                        )

                Plaintiff,    )

                        )

v.                        )    Case No. CF-2018-4243

                        )    Judge Kendra Coleman                                    )

RICHARD URRUTIA.            )

                        )

                Defendant.    )

Motion to Suppress Evidence obtained against 4th amendment rights and dismiss charge of Count 2.

I, Richard Urrutia jr., come before the courts with the motion to suppress all evidence obtained during an illegal search and against my 4th amendment rights and to dismiss count 2.  (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.)

Summary and Overview

   On Sept. 2nd, 2018 an officer got a call from a man stating that he was the brother of someone who's truck had been stolen the day before. That he has spotted his brother's truck, and has been following it. That it has pulled into a small shopping center off SE 44th & High ave. in Oklahoma city. 

   By then the truck owner arrives at this location; as well as the officer on the call.  The brother of truck owner then informs the officer he seen the guy get out and walk into the store across the complex, and he was a mexican man who was wearing a white shirt. The officer departs and walks over to the store leaving the witness and the truck owner behind. 

Findings to support illegal detainment with lack of probable cause and suspension

   Witnesses say that as soon the officer entered the store and seen Richard Urrutia standing right inside the doors that the officer called him out by his real name. That he had asked Richard what truck he was driving and the witnesses stated that Richard replied to the officer and then began to walk away. And at that time the officer threatened to tackle the defendant and they said Richard froze; whereas then the officer cuffed the defendant and searched the defendant before they ever left the counter.

It requires that officers have an objectively reasonable basis for suspecting criminal activity before detaining someone. In addition, before conducting a pat-down, officers must reasonably suspect that a subject is armed and dangerous. Officers can, however, ask people to stop and answer questions without reasonable suspicion.

One does not have probable cause unless he has information of facts which, if submitted to a magistrate, would require issuance of an arrest warrant. Mere suspicion is not enough. Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957).

 An arrest is not justified if the person arresting acts only at the request of a third person who himself has only a mere suspicion of guilt of the arrestee, and does not have probable cause.1 Whitely v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971). 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arrest, § 45. The officers' "good faith is not enough to constitute probable cause. That faith must be grounded on facts . . . which in the judgment of the court would make his faith reasonable." Welch v. State, 30 Okl.Cr. 330, 236 P. 68, 70 (1925

Probable cause- It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. Enough proof that if you introduced it to a magistrate it would be enough for a search warrent to be issued. 

   The officer escorted Richard out to the squad car while he spoke to the truck owner and according to the truck owner he stated to me that he had told the officer that he had not wanted to file charges on Richard because he believed he had not known nothing about the truck and he also told me what Richard said to him as the officer was escorting him out. And he told me that he believed him. 

In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. 

The fact that afterwards contraband was discovered is not enough. An arrest is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses . . ." 361 U.S. at 103, 80 S.Ct. at 171.

¶6 Since the officers had observed no incriminating actions, and standing there in line at the registar as being outwardly innocent, the only basis for arrest was the informant's undisclosed report which was insufficient to establish probable cause. The details of the report concerning defendant and "the manner in which he was implicated remain unexplained and undefined. The rumor about him is therefore practically meaningless." 361 U.S. at 103, 80 S.Ct. at 171. 

   

Even if probable cause had been provided by the informant, no exigent circumstances or compelling reasons existed. It is the rule that "no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent `exigent circumstances.'" Collidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).

Mere information from a third party, however, reliable, that a felony is being committed, without an effort to check its accuracy by personal observation,  where discovery is anticipated, would of itself be insufficient to authorize either issuance of a warrant or a search without a warrant."

   Taken into consideration that according to the cashier standing at the registar that day and the witness I spoke to who was standing directly behind Richard Urrutia in line, then the officer had automatically decided Richard had quilt before ever establoshing probable cause that efficent enough by the courts for his arrest that day. The officer searched him without probable cause and inside the store before taking Richard out and even discovering any facts from the actual truck owner and not soley his brother's word before he continued. During this search I was told the items were established according to the cashier who stated that then the officers had asked him if Richard had used cash or a credit card and he had replied that Richard never had a chance to pay for anything yet. 

   Taken into mind that probable cause was not found before or after the search making Count 2 invalid then I request the courts to suppress that evidence and dismiss this case. 

                       Thanks,  Richard Urrutia jr. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,            )

                        )

                Plaintiff,    )

                        )

v.                        )    Case No. CF-2018-4243

                        )    Judge Kendra Coleman                                    )

RICHARD URRUTIA.            )

                        )

                Defendant.    )

                     MOTION TO REDUCE CHARGES

   On September 2nd the defendant Richard Urrutia was unknowingly approached and searched; and in his pocket was a single bag of narcotics with no other paraphernalia found, no scales, no extra baggies, no other types of narcotics. Nor does the defendant have any type of history of that kind and the defendant states that he was charged with Trafficking on that day of September 2nd solely because the weight of that bag barely touched the minimum grams needed in order for it to be filed as Trafficking if someone chose to do it that way. And the defendant chooses to file a motion in order to correct the charge to something it better implies. 

         SUPPORTING FACTS

   At his arrest the defendant was at his local convenience store and not trying to sell, nor distribute, nor was he traveling or trying to conceal, or hide anything and especially not Trafficking or traveling outside of his own area. There are no supportive facts than show any other besides a simple possession and all facts show this is likely what it was. The defendant had no other narcotics present, nor did he have scales or other bags available, and the contents were in one single bag and no other paraphernalia was near. The defendant was not selling anything, nor did it appear he was, and there were no items used for manufacturing near him or on him.  

 The defendant has no criminal history towards previous charges of Trafficking, or towards intent to distribute, and all he has as a subsequent offence is the prior possession charge going back to the year 2012 and making that almost 8 years ago. The defendant has no recent cases established since and that case and it was closed in 2013. 

   The defendant swears all he has is a habit and the reason he had 24 grams in his pocket at the time was solely because he was maintaining a full time job and had another part time job he did on the side prior to being stopped that exact day of September 2nd,2018; and therefore was unable to go out each day in order to maintain his habit and so he purchased enough to get through the week. 

   The contents of that bag of norcartics according to records show it at 24.75 grams which is consistent with the amount likely used on a weekly basis and the defendant had no other narcotics, no other baggies which made the narcotics totaled up together, nor any scales in his pocket at the time. The defendant solely had one bag and nothing else which appeared to be nothing but an addiction problem, and a possession of narcotics used only for personal use, which weight of bag still did not even count for an ounce which is still under the rational amount for possession . Therefore it is most likely the defendant did indeed plan on using those narcotics for personal use only. 

            SUMMARY

   

   Taking into consideration that the defendant was found with what seemed to be only a possession then we are petitioning the courts to lower the charge of Trafficking to a lesser charge of possession. 

  

                                                     Signed by defendant

                                                           Richard Urrutia jr. 

  

     

                                                   This 25th day of June 2019

They say not to be a prisoner of your past, but you are when you are dealing with the system.. !

  

   Today we went for a bond reduction hearing & instead of looking at the case these days, the District Attorney's office brought up the charges he had on Richard when he was 18 & 20 years old. That's 24 years ago & why should it matter in a case today?  He was a kid then & those type charges have not applied since then either & so why does it have a bearing on his life today?

    He had finished his time for that & we are talking about someone's life which has changed & since they been released they have had no charges referring to actual crime being done & all he has received is this possession charge.

  After being incarcerated now 9 months & after all the work we been trying to do., we asked for a bond reduction court date & finally got it. But at the hearing, although Richard's Attorney Micah Sielert covered the difference in Richard's life these days, & he was working & would be allowed back at his job upon release.. That Richard has lived here all his life & he has his family was here too. That he has people to stand by him too. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY this case was set at $58,000 & the defendant had been in that jail for 8 months & because of inability to pay, then the family had asked for a bond reduction.  Rules are that a bond is not meant for pre-trial detention & supposed to be set at ability to pay. 

   MICAH SIELERT did an decent presentation of the facts & I was shocked to hear the DISTRICT ATTORNEY 'John Brewer' who came in & he took Richard's charges that he had 20 years ago & used them as if they were a current case now...  Never did he distinguish this, nor did he clarify what had actually been within the last 10 year period that supposed to matter.

Richard had charges from 1995, when he was 18 years old & that was almost 25  years ago.  The others were 18 years ago, & that's the jist of his charges that hold him as a felon & as being a violent offender too. So hearing the life of an 18 year old gang member instead of even the last 2 decades, caused the Judge to decide to keep him at an outrageous bond amount that was not set for his current charges as a single offence, or within a 10 year time period... 

Richard has had nothing since his last release, besides this illegally obtained search & harassment, which did help lead him back into a continuous cycle that even I have given up on the system ever letting anybody make a change because Richard's past will always define him & that's all they give room for.  

And crazy as it sounds a case that is for others a misdemeanor charge they choose continue to stick with15 years prison sentence as the offer even though it shows to be a possession charge naturally & then even offered to reduce to that.

Besides these old cases then Richard was only in trouble once & that was 7 years ago when he grabbed a toolbox out of the back of a truck. They have it listed as Burglary 2 & for that one incident in 2012 he was incarcerated 5 years, & now it's another possession & they want to throw 15 years in it because of what he did when he was a young & that was 25 years ago.  Richard grew up on SE 23rd & Central which was the very worst side of town. I don't really have a record myself but I grew up in Moore where nothing goes on & I never been apart of surroundings being bad. His side of town was extremely violent & he has changed his life enough that in the past 18 years he was only arrested for this petty case & another, & the other had been 7 years back, which is nothing much. And for why was it all for when they use your past, which you done learned from, against you while you doing good.. .?

 (it's always a life sentence with the system & that's why stastitics prove that once someone has been incarcerated it continues to repeat itself)

Why do they make sayings like these if are system don't believe in them? 

  (" We all have a past, the difference between those people who achieve thier dreams & the difference between those who don't is they don't let the past define them.")

   ("Your mistakes don't define your character, it's what you do after you have made the mistake that makes all the difference.")

   I have learnt that it's always a life sentence & that's what causes things to never change! That's why all these new laws won't change a thing either, because they find a way to not make it pertain to you. Once someone offends then their life has become that even after they finished their sentence & even if they been trying to change thier life.

  The cops have harrassed him anyways ever since he returned to the streets & YOU CANT FIGHT NOTHING IN OKLAHOMA COUNTY BECAUSE EVERYTHING THE REPRESENTATIVES DO HERE IS ILLEGAL & THEY DECIDE WHO THEY WANT & THEY MAKE SURE IT ENDS THAT WAY. 

  While everything they do has 'just cause' & officers get away with murder, even though most all those cases are unarmed men, & these officers kill someone because 10 officers feel threatened by one man carrying a stick!  

( https://newsok.com/article/5575356/da-clears-okc-police-officer-in-fatal-shooting-of-deaf-man )

    I feel the 10 years after a sentence is already crazy because they give someone a 5 year deferred & then make it to where even 10 years after that it still matters. Don't they mean a 15 deferred because a deferred is basically promising that you won't get in any trouble for those 5 years or else you will do time. But even 10 years after then you get in trouble your gonna do that time still because that gives you priors & see so whatever they have you on doubles. So you best hope it is not a rough charge because it don't matter how minor your prior charge was because enhancements don't work like you would think here. Enhancements are not for repeating the same type charge like I thought.. . Enhancements come solely because of previous charge, or charges..  

  Well, come to find out now it's really a life sentence once you have had a charge because  the ones they brought up at Richard's court date which made him sound like a violent offender were the ones that happened  22-24 years ago. Not anything was mentioned by the Prosecutor in that case today that was within those 10 years back even. Otherwise he would not have those type charges to make his case sound bad at all.

  It seems to work because this is actually giving them reason to charge him with 15 years in prison over a possession charge,!  So why not just call everything a life sentence & just leave it at that !

   You would think it would be based on your recent life & that's why they say once someone goes to prison then it leads them back again & again. Maybe it's not them & maybe it's because we never accept their change & therefore never allow it to stay that way! . 

I guess its legal but the law is fucked up & people dont live all that damn long once adults. My mom died at 53 & so I might have 30 years to live as well as an adult. If you take a 10 year deffered & then add 10 years after that in order to say somebody has priors & use it to convict twice harder.., then you may as well of called it a 20 year sentence. Nineteen years later if you caught a case then they come back & use it on you in order to give you twice the punishment is crazy because you did your time for that case & been good for 19 years, & its still going to fuck you because thats how they like to do things. ??? 

• Allows for enhancement of sentence for those facing criminal charges alleging they committed a new offense within 10 years of the completion of a previous sentence. (Not the sentencing date, the completion of the probation or discharge of the prison sentence.)
• 
  

*** So they go by your sentencing date when they come up with the laws changing although you have not been sentenced yet. But when they want to convict you then your sentencing date is not what matters. I GET IT. THEY ARE HYPOCRITES.** 

           Yours truly,   STACY PRIVETT

Oklahoma County case vs Richard Urrutia jr. # CF 2018-4243

John brewer - Prosecuter on case

 Micah Sielert - Court App. Attorney
Judge Hammond then following is Judge Coleman
Officer Luna - Sante Fe division

    This is the case I am working on now because he was illegally approached to begin with when he was searched, but all he has is a habit & it showed. Plus, he has always been in prison & just got out & that’s where that habit formed. Now they wanna give him 15 years back in prison for some drugs. 

    Upon being searched, (technically Unlawfully), Richard Urrutia had some drugs in his pocket. Officer weighed it out at 23 grams with the container & they charged him as Trafficking even though there was not one single thing as far as scales, or baggies, or anything besides being a personal bag. Richard does not have a history of anything, & he was in his same area of town, & was not concealing it to hide it & now they are trying to give him 15 years on what was really just a possession charge & nothing more. He had a real good paying job but now he sits in jail for 8 months already because I can’t post bond.

   The officer aproached Richard for a stolen vehicle that was parked outside a gas station in small shopping center.  That officer had never seen him get out of a car & at his Pelimanary Hearing they also dropped that charge of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle because they had nothing on him, but even though that was their  probable cause for his search.., they didn't throw the rest the case away!  

   That officer at his arrest must of had it out for Richard because he told Richard that he was going to give him the worst charges he could get out of it. And so Richard was charged with Trafficking drugs also.

   ( Oftentimes, people possess drugs only for personal use, but end up being criminally charged with something more severe. I refer to these charges as legal traps; someone intends to use their drugs solely for personal use, but some circumstance or something they say to police causes them to be charged more severely.)

   They also for some reason have Richard on a charge of 'Taken Credit Card' although in the police report it lists the name on the card as Richard Urrutia Jr. & it being a Chase Bank card. But then later, as you read the report, it  says it was reported missing out of this truck. So if it has Richard's name on the card then how is it the one missing from some truck. ?? ? 

   It's never been changed but how do we fight that when they never give us a chance. They won't even allow me to speak at anything & the police department has kept Richard's money he had in his pocket which happen to be $450 bucks. The courts keep telling us that isn't part of the case but the police department won't release it because they said that the District Attorney on the case has to tell them it can be released. The District Attorney won't even let me say a sentence to him & tells me go talk to my Attorney.  I have did that & made sure the attorney called up the police lutienent O'Brian so it can be released & O'Brian keeps saying Judge or District Attorney. Niether them want to talk to you & our attorney says it not even part of the case because Richard not charged with proceeds so now 8 months later I can't get the money released Richard had. 

(Under the federal sentencing guidelines, a "drug trafficking offense" as "an offense under federal, state, or local law that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense." U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1),)

  They charged him with Trafficking even though there was not one single thing as far as scales, or baggies, or anything besides being a personal bag. Richard does not have a history of anything, & he was in his same area of town, & was not concealing it to hide it & now they are trying to give him 15 years on what was really just a possession charge & nothing more. He had a real good paying job but now he sits in jail for 8 months already because I can’t post bond. There was nothing that showed intent to sell for that matter.

( Oklahoma has the second-highest incarceration rate in the country, 70 percent higher than the national average. Yet Oklahoma is not 70 percent safer than the rest of the country.

   Oklahoma continues locking up low-level nonviolent offenders as felons despite criminological research that shows that this approach is ineffective. In fact, for some offenders, including drug offenders and first-time offenders, prison actually increases the likelihood of reoffending.)

    He was not transporting, or on a highway traveling. He was not making a sale & it was not hidden in a vehicle or animate object for concealing it. It was in his pocket & he was shopping at a store.

(The federal government typically treats trafficking as trafficking, and possession as possession no matter what the amount, but they do give a little leeway for each state to come up with their own guidelines. Although the definition of trafficking is commercial dealing or over state lines.)

   So Oklahoma says that over 20 grams can be considered trafficking.  But while in jail on a trafficking charge for having 23 grams of Meth in a single bag, he had 2 cell mates who were locked up for possession charges of a misdemeanor with one man carrying 25 grams of meth & he also had a few ounces of Heroin with scales & bags. And the other having 28 grams of meth with other baggies.., but yet those 2 men were booked in for possession only.

(Prison reformers seem most unhappy about what they say is a trend of upgrading charges against nonviolent offenders. With our loose definitions many can find a way around question 780. The report notes that while admissions with a controlling drug offense declined, charges for possession with intent to distribute, drug trafficking, child endangerment and second-degree burglary increased.)

    When I went over arrests each day in the jail blotter, all it shows is that there is in increase in possession with intent & also trafficking charges, since the new laws went out.

   So what are the new guidelines for Trafficking & shouldn’t they change the term to classify those who really do traffic in illegal drugs, or are they now lowering that charge & making trafficking drugs seem like possession now.???

  Richard didn't even have anything else on him!

   When I checked out the Oklahoma county Trafficking records from beginning of last year those people obviously sold drugs at least & most had several different drugs on their person & paraphernalia. Some had a gun also & I had thought priors of equal value mattered. Richard don't really have any priors of that nature or other drug-related priors at all, except his simple misdemeanor possession going back 7 years ago, & they want to give him 15 years on this one. He has had no other charges since his release at all & since he already did his time on any other things in the past then this is like a single charge.  

   I read this saying that is very popular which tells you "Don't be a prisoner of your past" & its written often all over Facebook even.  Your not supposed to be a prisoner of your past unless it comes to the system, then thats exactly what it is all about! 

    They say your sentence is only enhanced if you do the same alike crime but thats not true I seen a girl with 2 sets of Trafficking charges get 10 years & they were run concurrently together.With 2 sets that means 4 charges & they were so close they got ran together for sentencing.  And they want to offer Richard 15 years & its not even a Trafficking case, & his record is for the most part is 20 years ago.

(Kendra Renee Glover 

case# 2018-918  Traffic Meth, Traffic Heroin
Sentenced 10 years run concurrently w/ 2017-1328 (poss heroin),  

 2017-3837 (poss heroin, poss pills), 

 2018-197 (Traff Heroin, Traffic Meth), &. L2018-1485 (poss heroin).)

(Shane Anderson Myers case# 2018-918 .Trafficking Heroin, Trafficking Meth
Sentenced 5 years D.O.C.
Run concurrently w/ 2017-2209 (poss meth), 2017-8714 (poss Heroin). )

(Jeffrey Alan Harrison -Trafficking
6 years D.O.C)

(Edward Greenfield Cole- Trafficking
5 years D.O.C)

    THOSE THE REAL TRAFFICKING CASES. Richard's isn't & so Lets look at amended ones to just poss w/ intent.. . Because his would be one that not kept Trafficking for sure.. .  

(Jennifer Shatswell- amended to intent & also a poss., 4 years supervised w/ first 90 days in OCJ.)

(Joshua McAlister- amended to intent & also a poss., 8 years supervised w/ first 90 days in OCJ.) 

(Zachery Newton- amended to intent & had a poss. also, 4 years supervised w/ first 90 days to do in OCJ.)

(Thomas Clayton Ralston- Trafficking amended to w/ intent, & a POSS. OF FIREARM, sentenced 4 years D.O.C)

   AND THOSE MENTIONED ARE WITH THAT CASE ALONE NOT INCLUDING THEIR RECORDS PREVIOUSLY, BUT SOME HAVE HAD ONE, & SOME ARE WITH THEM ALL RUN TOGETHER .  These people show at least one of the required items that will soon show intent to distribute & Richard has none. .

   (For most drugs, there’s now no difference in punishment based on how many trafficking violations a defendant has ever had & there’s no enhancement based on previous felony convictions for a violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act (except for fentanyl).)

  Well, that explains why the girl who actually had 4 trafficking charges got a 10 year sentence, others got less with 4 or 5 years & these were real trafficking cases & not amended ones., where its wrong in the first place to charge for something not suitable because it makes a better case & more time!   ...

    SOMEBODY IN THE SYSTEM DON'T CARE FOR RICHARD & I know this because they have been harassing him  since he got out & been trying to illegally set Richard up on something.

 (Senate Bill 0649: Limiting enhanced punishment for controlled substance possession

• Previous convictions for possession of a controlled substance or an equivalent law from another jurisdiction cannot be used to enhance punishment for following offenses.)

     (Obama Administration Wrote this Concerning Criminal Justice Reform.. . 

Defining applicants by their past mistakes, without considering their qualifications and potential, is unjust and unnecessary. Having served their prescribed sentences, former prisoners have repaid their debt to society. Yet the stigma of their criminal conviction continues to punish them and, in many ways, permanently relegate them to a second-class status. )  

 They did offer to lower it to a possession & it's with that they are offering the 15 year sentence.

And of course they using enhancements purely because he been in trouble before & its been 8 years since then. 

************************

  ****  CASE FILING #2 (Court 12/10/2018)   ****

  

  ( Fully 75 percent of Oklahoma’s inmates were sentenced for nonviolent offenses. These are not hardened criminals. More than half of those sentenced for nonviolent offenses have zero or one prior felony convictions, and the vast majority have no history of violent crime.)

   Statistics say that most people who have been in prison; will return to prison within a few years. Since they're typically has to be other factors.., at his court hearing the state of Oklahoma decided to reduce those charges from trafficking to possession, which is what it truly was.

  So at court December 10th they reduced his charge to just a possession charge but they tried to give him 15 years in prison.  And despite the new law making possession a misdemeanor.  They also stated that it was to be charged as a felony because he has priors.

    (Possession is also a misdemeanor even if you were recently released from prison. Max time for a possession charge is up to one year in jail. Enhanced it can be no more than twice the amount the charge carries.  And if the offence dont carry a minimum prison time then it is 2 years for a subsequent offense. .)

?.!  

No wonder the statics show once you have been in prison that you are likely to return within the first year or two.

  

 (These laws, all signed by the governor on April 26, 2018, go into effect in late 2018.)

  (-Senate Bill 649 removes previous felony drug possession convictions as a reason that prosecutors can seek sentence enhancements. The new law also reduces sentence enhancements for recidivism in non-violent crimes. A petty larceny conviction after a prior felony conviction will be a simple misdemeanor – no longer a felony with penalties as long as five years in prison.)

 (-SB 649 will reduce sentences for repeat drug offenders convicted of possession. Currently, repeat offenders receive harsher sentences because of their previous drug possession offenses. The new law eliminates those sentencing enhancements. Courts now cannot impose longer sentences on defendants because of their previous convictions for possession of controlled dangerous substances. However, people convicted of other drug crimes may still receive extra prison time for being repeat offenders.)

  Out of the many things that he could be, its not criminal activity that they are trying to give him 15 years for in prison.., but a possession charge which law states is a misdemeanor now & carries no more than a year in jail. They are trying to consider it a felony & District Attorney John Brewer came to him with another 15 years in prison.

  The law of possession being a misdemeanor passed 2 1/2 years ago & the law 649 passed in April but effective 1 1/2 months ago officially..

    Seems to me now that more people are just charged with bigger offences than would have previously been so that the law can lock them up the same. But it's always been like that. 

   AND SO HOW DOES OKLAHOMA COUNTY THINK THAT THEY DONT NEED TO FOLLOW THE LAWS; BUT THEY WILL SIT HERE & ACT LIKE THEY ARE ENFORCING THEM..?  They wheel & deal however they want to make what they want happen. THEY HONESTLY THINK THEY ADE GOD & THAT DONT FOLLOW BY RATIONAL RULES.   Not for others or themselves!

    Thats why I no longer have respect for the law. They are all biggits & many of them are alcoholics, but would they do that to themselves. . ? ?

    So his pre-trail conference is March 6th, 2019 & thats where they see what they have & if it could hold trail. So I cant wait to see what they will pull this time. 

                                        Stacy Privett

   *HERE IS ANOTHER STORY FOR YOU***

  (The federal government typically treats trafficking as trafficking, and possession as possession no matter what the amount, but they do give a little leeway for each state to come up with their own guidelines. Although the definition of trafficking is commercial dealing or over state lines.)

  I have an Uncle who did drugs for so many years so that now that he is old & disabled, he needs drugs each day to just function normally. He gets disability & limited income one a month & lives in Eufuala which is 2 hours from Oklahoma City. So once a month he comes to OKC to buy for entire month while he at home in Eufuala. He was used to doing an 8-ball a day at least, just to function in the past, so narrowing it down to a gram per day ain't much for him. 

    My Uncle comes & buys 28 grams if he is able to, & he has to budget, gets paid once a month, & can only make trip to city once a month. He has to drive home on Highway almost 2 hours away, but he has limited income & lives outta town, & for damn sure is no drug trafficker. He does not sale drugs & he is almost 60 years old now. What he buys is strictly personal & I would be extremely upset if he went down for a charge of Trafficking & had to do 15 years in prison because he had an addiction to drugs so long that he needs them to get up in the morning each day. 

   He has to budget & has to come down to the city & don't know people in Eufuala., but 28 grams is only about a gram a day.  His old habit had him having to do an 8-ball a day so this cuts him down enormously.

 Anyway you look at it still makes it just possession & just a habit.  Everyone has one, even if it's gambling or food.. .

                        Stacy Privett

P.S.  I AM PRETTY POSITIVE THAT IS WAS THE FACT HE SPENT HIS ENTIRE ADULT YEARS SO FAR (22 out of 42) IN PRISON THAT HAS LED TO HIS SCHIZOPHRENIA ISSUES NOW.  ITS BEEN AWFULLY HARD FOR RICHARD TO ADJUST OUT HERE AS IT IS. 

AND YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL IN THE SYSTEM FOR AN ISSUE LIKE THIS WHICH, either way you look at it, THE SYSTEM IN SOME WAY STILL CAUSED IT.  .

  15 YEARS IS THE SAME AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY, WHERE YOU FORM SOMETHING & THEN PUNISH FOR IT!  
****************

  

Arresting officer Abraham Luna -Sante Fe Division threats to arrest using color of law

  A few months before the arrest of Richard Urrutia, the Oklahoma City police swerved in front of us demanding hands put up.  They put me in a car after telling me that they just wanted to talk to him.. While I was sitting in the back of the car the officer said he would run my name real quick.    
   
  Those officers take some minutes, then soon surround me.  Basically saying there was somethin found in a bag after they moved us & they needed me to let them know if Richard had thrown it. 

   

   I couldn't say that I seen him throw it & it became threats that they would then have to charge both of us..  As one officer gets angry he then splurts out that they planned on taking him for possession regardless at one point when we spoke & really if I just said it was his then they would of let me go. But otherwise they would have to charge both of us for it.   

  Because of this story I also arrested on possession charges & I thought I would spend forever in jail,  or worse & go to prison.  I have a previous case that I signed for just to be let out of jail but nothing legal was done in first place. 

   If you look up my record then it shows the possessions probable cause hearing but it goes no further on this one. (3-20-2018). It shows on my OSCN for probable cause that next morning but nothing at all is shown on his record.

    ANYWAYS BACK TO THIS STORY.. .

   This time the crazy thing was that just as morning hit, about 8am, the jail personal came to release me. When we were exiting the pod she told me that they decided not to file charges on me. I was released but not him. He was held for 10 days like i should have been because its odd for them to pull you first thing in morning to release you because they decided not to file.   And how & why does a jail officer even have that info?

  Richard waited out his 10 days but once he was released he tells me that the jail officer who took him to arraignment actually told him, while they were standing there for arraignment, that they decided to let me go.. 
   
  Later on I had realized that basically they had tried to get me to set him up & would of used me saying it was his to have their proof. That's why they made me believe that I was going to have a case on me.  I believed them at that time & I was scared to death & crying as I went to jail. 

        NOW THINK ABOUT IT..... .

   Richard was not driving anything when officer pulled in the parkinglot at that corner shopping center. A friend of mine named Carrie was posted outside at gas pumps. She stated the officer pulled in & got out & walked straight in the store. Our other friend, Ashley, was posted behind Pico in line. The officer came in the store with the intentions to arrest Pico. Ashley stated that the officer 1st asked Pico if he driving the red truck & Pico stated No'.   As Pico began to walk away the officer said "Dont make me take you down", & Pico stopped. 

  The store clerk told me that the officer asked him if Pico had paid for that pump & what he used to pay. The store clerk stated to me that he answered the officer by saying that the defendant had not even got a chance to pay yet so he had not used nothing to pay for anything, so he did not know.

    The officer arrested Richard for stolen vehicle that parked in lot even though nobody seen him driving any vehicle anywhere. Of course at court they deopped that charge because of the facts & that meant they had no probable cause for his arrest. But after arresting him & searching him they found a bag of stuff in his pocket. They continue to charge him on it although technically with 'Illegal Search & Siezure' then they have no right to keep any charge

.

   I HAVE NOT BELIEVED IN OKLAHOMA COUNTY OFFICERS THIS ENTIRE TIME.  Or the courts too much!  

  -- But if you want to ask why they would target Richard as they do then I will tell you.. . .

   The reason they plot against him is because of something that happened when he was 18 & I know this because i have watched the police harass him once& right after Richard was first released.  They mentioned a case where an officer was shot & the name was 'Bearbow'.& I guess when Richard was 18 years old he was riding with another guy who had stole a car. The police chased them & the other guy opened fire on the officer. It killed him & I think the guys name was Bearbow. Richard got off on the charges because he was not the person shooting at anybody & the other guy did & went to prison. But when the cops first harrassed Richard one day they spoke of this.

    Also I know a man who was continually speaking to an officer from the Oklahoma city Sante Fe division on trying to get Richard arrested & the officer that came out to his place, I know, the officer also spoke both English & Spanish.  So, I figured that must be Officer Luna because the day of Richard's arrest, that officer aproached Richard & arrested him within a crowd of others because supposedly there was a parked stolen truck out at the gas pumps. The officer had no probable cause to arrest Richard because the officer had not seen Richard driving anything & by the questions asked to both 'Pico' & the store clerk at the registar, nothing said Richard had driven anything. Of course that charge of Unauthorized Use of Vehicle was dropped once the officer testified but the dope found during what makes an illegal arrest in the 1st place held. Richard should of never been searched & now the D.A comes at him with 15 years on that. The officer stated at arrest that he going to charge him with whatever he can & the biggest he can.

  ( The man who I speak about is Raul Vibillos-Jaurez but he changes his name alot, & he lived just a few houses down at 721 SE 48th OKC but not anymore.)

SINCE I BEEN IN OKLAHOMA CITY I HAVE SEEN TOO MUCH BAD POLITICS TO WATCH PEOPLE IN POLITICS BE SO JUDGEMENTAL.. . 

                      Stacy Privett

******************************

     WELL ACTUALLY, just because someone lives in a certain area they are treated like they are a criminals in Oklahoma City. They are somehow already labeled & therefore automatically treated so by our justice system here, & therefore my theory is that's how they become part of the justice system.

  "When you see somebody as a criminal & therefore automatically assume & prosecute them as one..,  then I guess they have no choice because the system makes them that through targeting & then prosecuting the innocent without real cause. 

( I am a felon because of this so don't tell me that it does not happen. I been there twice but only in OKC. And here is a 3rd time I thought for sure would send me to prison, but I am lucky it didn't. I thought again I was going to have a charge & I never seen myself going to prison in my life, or being a felon either, because I don't actually do anything bad like that).