Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 01-28-2015
Case Style: State of Oklahoma v. Raymond Roberts
Case Number: CF-2013-6126
Judge: William LaFortune
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Mark Morgan
Defendant's Attorney: Jay Ramey
Description: Tulsa County, OK - The State of Oklahoma charged Raymond Roberts with:
Count # 1. Count as Filed: BRG2, BURGLARY - SECOND DEGREE, in violation of 21 O.S. 1435
Date of Offense: 12/02/2013
The state alleged that Mr. Roberts- a 41 year-old veteran with no criminal history - had burglarized a storage unit. Defense Counsel, Jay Ramey, alleged that Mr. Roberts suffered from PTSD and other issues from the war in Iraq and applied for Veteran's Court. (An option similar to Drug Court, tailored for Veterans that have unique circumstances that stem from their service to our country in war). The application was denied and the matter went to trial before the Honorable William Lafortune. The case went to the jury for deliberations and a recess was taken. When it was announced that the jury had reached a verdict, the Defendant - who had been out on bond since 2013 - was nowhere to be found. A "scouring" of the courthouse was made by deputies and even the Defendant's mother, who was visibly upset and apologized profusely to the Court. The question arose of whether to proceed without the defendant's presence. After considerable discussion between Mr. Ramey and ADA, Mark Morgan, Judge Lafortune decided to have the verdict announced and proceeded to make a detailed record, explaining the Defendant's absence and efforts to locate him. The jury returned and rendered their verdict of GUILY, recommending a sentence of two years. Jury members who were interviewed stated that the evidence was overwhelming, as Mr. Roberts was caught within the storage unit with a cut lock in his pocket and items stacked near the door for removal. The Court then issued a bench warrant and Mr. Roberts is currently being sought by authorities.
Outcome: The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY and recommended a sentence of two years. Because the Defendant, who was out on bond, failed to appear for the reading of the verdict, the verdict was entered in absentia.(See above description of the rendering of the verdict)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: Reported by: Paralegal, Robert Wirtz