State of Oklahoma v. John Anthony Steele

Idabel, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with making a Lewd or Indecent Proposal to Child Under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2022, §1123(A)(1).

Digested by Kent Morlan

The ultimate question of sufficiency of the evidence should be resolved with deference to the fact finder and in a light most favorable to the State. Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, ¶ 80, 100 P.3d 1017, 1041; see also Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04 (finding that viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State, a verdict will not be overturned if any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime to exist beyond a reasonable doubt). We also accept all reasonable inferences and credibility choices that tend to support the verdict. Coddington v. State, 2006 OK CR 34, ¶ 70, 142 P.3d 437, 456. As Appellant's challenge also requires a review of a question of statutory construction, we will review that issue de novo. State v. Allen, 2021 OK CR 14, ¶ 6, 492 P.3d 27, 29.

At the conclusion of trial, Judge Maxwell found Mr. Steel guilty. At formal sentencing Judge Maxwell sentenced Mr. Steel to the maximum of ten years imprisonment and denied credit for time served.

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. (2026), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.