Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant Native American on a speeding ticket.

Marvin Keith Stitt, was convicted of Aggravated Speeding (Tulsa, Okla., Rev. Ordinances Title 37, § 617(C) (2021)) following a non-jury trial before the Honorable Mitchell McCune, Municipal Judge, and fined $250.00 in City of Tulsa Municipal Court Citation/Case No. 7569655.

Stitt challenged the jurisdiction of the Tulsa Municipal Court to convict him of speeding.

Marvin Keith Stitt, was convicted of Aggravated Speeding (Tulsa, Okla., Rev. Ordinances Title 37, § 617(C) (2021)) following a non-jury trial before the Honorable Mitchell McCune, Municipal Judge, and fined $250.00 in City of Tulsa Municipal Court Citation/Case No. 7569655.

On October 19, 2023, Appellant filed a supplemental brief including a Proposition A arguing this Court should rely on the Tenth Circuit's holding in Hooper and deny Tulsa's Curtis Act arguments. This Court recently addressed and denied the same Hooper arguments made by Appellant in this case in City of Tulsa v. O'Brien, 2024 OK CR 31, ¶¶ 36-37, ___P.3d___. O'Brien noted that while this Court is not bound by Tenth Circuit precedents, we will follow the guidance of the Tenth Circuit until the United States Supreme Court rules on the issue. Id., 2024 OK CR 31, ¶ 37 (citing McCauley v. State, 2024 OK CR 8, ¶¶ 4-5, 548 P.3d 461, 464-65; Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 119, 268 P.3d 86, 119, as corrected (Feb. 7, 2012)). The Tenth Circuit correctly addressed the identical issues raised by Tulsa in this case in Hooper, and the analysis in the Tenth Circuit's opinion establishes that the entirety of Tulsa's Curtis Act arguments are without merit. Hooper, 71 F.4th at 1285-87. As a result, Appellant's original Propositions A and B and Supplemental Proposition A are denied.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: