State of Oklahoma v. K.G.G.

Tulsa, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with uttering a forged instrument in violation of 21 O.S. 1592, which provides:

A. Every person who, with intent to defraud, utters or publishes as true any forged, altered or counterfeited instrument or any counterfeit gold or silver coin, the forging, altering or counterfeiting of which has previously been declared to be punishable, knowing such instrument or coin to be forged, altered or counterfeited, is punishable as follows:

1. If the value of the instrument is less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the person shall be guilty of forgery as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one (1) year, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine;

2. If the value of the instrument is One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more but less than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00), the person shall be guilty of forgery, a Class D3 felony offense, punishable by imprisonment as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20P of this title, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine;

3. If the value of the instrument is Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) or more but less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), the person shall be guilty of forgery, a Class D1 felony offense, punishable by imprisonment as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20N of this title, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine; and

4. If the value of the instrument is Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) or more, the person shall be guilty of forgery, a Class C2 felony offense, punishable by imprisonment as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20M of this title, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine.

B. For purposes of this section, a series of offenses may be aggregated into one offense when they are the result of the formulation of a plan or scheme or the setting up of a mechanism which, when put into operation, results in the taking or diversion of money or property on a recurring basis. When all acts result from a continuing course of conduct, they may be aggregated into one crime. Acts forming an integral part of the first taking which facilitate subsequent takings, or acts taken in preparation of several takings which facilitate subsequent takings, are relevant to determine the intent of the party to commit a continuing crime.

JUDGE APRIL SEIBERT: DEFENDANT PRESENT, NOT IN CUSTODY AND REPRESENTED BY LIZ HELLMAN PD. STATE REPRESENTED BY TUCKER STEEN. CASE DISMISSED COST TO STATE AT PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION. BOND EXONERATED/