Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

State of Oklahoma v. V.M.B.

Date: 02-12-2026

Case Number: CF-2025-4497

Judge: Kevin Keller

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney:
Danny Anson

Defendant's Attorney:


Click Here For The Best Tulsa Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:
Tulsa, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with failure to possess required license under the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Act in violation of 37A O.S. 6-117, which provides:

Any person who shall knowingly engage in any activity or perform any transaction or act for which a license is required under the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, not having such license, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and for the first offense, upon conviction, be fined not more than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) and imprisoned for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than six (6) months, and for a second or subsequent offense shall be guilty of a Class D3 felony offense and be fined not more than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00), or imprisoned as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20P of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

and

Possession with intent to sell alcoholic beverages without a license in violation of 37A O.S. 6-113, which provides:

t shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to possess any alcoholic beverages with the intent to sell the same without having first procured a license therefor from the ABLE Commission as now provided for by law. All alcoholic beverages found in the possession or under the control of any person or persons, firm or corporation who, on the same date, or within fifteen (15) days prior thereto, has violated Section 153 of this act, shall be seized by the arresting officer and shall be forfeited to the State of Oklahoma, as provided for in Section 167 of this act; provided, property seized by a county or municipal law enforcement officer shall be forfeited to the county or municipality in which the seizure of the property took place, whichever is appropriate, as provided for in Section 167 of this act.
Outcome:
CASE CALLED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING. ONE (1) WITNESS SWORN. DEMURRER SUSTAINED. STATE DOES NOT INTENT TO FILE APPEAL STATE ANNOUNCES COUNT 2 IS DISMISSED COST TO STATE. COUNT 1 IS DISMISSED COST TO STATE BY THE COURT. BOND EXONERATED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of State of Oklahoma v. V.M.B.?

The outcome was: CASE CALLED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING. ONE (1) WITNESS SWORN. DEMURRER SUSTAINED. STATE DOES NOT INTENT TO FILE APPEAL STATE ANNOUNCES COUNT 2 IS DISMISSED COST TO STATE. COUNT 1 IS DISMISSED COST TO STATE BY THE COURT. BOND EXONERATED.

Which court heard State of Oklahoma v. V.M.B.?

This case was heard in District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, OK. The presiding judge was Kevin Keller.

Who were the attorneys in State of Oklahoma v. V.M.B.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Danny Anson. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Tulsa Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.

When was State of Oklahoma v. V.M.B. decided?

This case was decided on February 12, 2026.