Soto v. State, M–2012–1095.
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | A. JOHNSON |
| Citation | 326 P.3d 526 |
| Parties | Maximino Manuel SOTO, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. M–2012–1095.,M–2012–1095. |
| Decision Date | 27 March 2014 |
326 P.3d 526
Maximino Manuel SOTO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. M–2012–1095.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
March 27, 2014.
An Appeal from the District Court of Beaver County; the Honorable Ryan D. Reddick, Associate District Judge.
Daniel H. Diepenbrock, Attorney at Law, Liberal, KS, for Appellant at trial and appeal.
Abby M. Cash, Assistant District Attorney, Beaver, OK, for the State at trial.
E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Jennifer B. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, for the State on appeal.
A. JOHNSON, Judge.
¶ 1
[326 P.3d 527]
Appellant Maximino Manuel Soto appeals from his misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence imposed by the Honorable Ryan D. Reddick, Associate District Judge, in Case No. TR–2012–376 in the District Court of Beaver County. Soto was convicted in a non-jury trial of Overweight Vehicle in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 14–109, and was sentenced to a fine of $290.00 and costs and fees of $206.50.
¶ 2 On May 17, 2012, Soto was driving a refuse collection vehicle for his employer, Seward County Waste Management Services. That company contracts with cities in the Oklahoma panhandle to collect refuse from residences and businesses and haul it to a landfill in Seward County, Kansas. Soto was stopped by an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper on U.S. Highway 83 in Beaver County, Oklahoma. The trooper's observation of the vehicle's tires had led him to believe it might exceed the allowable weight set by 47 O.S.2011, § 14–109. Weighing of the truck confirmed it was overweight.
¶ 3 On appeal Soto argues, as he did below, that the vehicle weight limitations of Section 14–109 did not apply to his truck because it was a “refuse collection vehicle” and so falls within an exception to that statute providing:
E. Exceptions to this section will be:
1. Utility or refuse collection vehicles used by counties, cities, or towns or by private companies contracted by counties, cities, or towns if the following conditions are met:
a. calculation of weight for a utility or refuse collection vehicle shall be “Gross Vehicle Weight”. The “Gross Vehicle Weight” of a utility or refuse collection vehicle may not exceed the otherwise applicable weight by more than fifteen percent (15%). The weight on individual axles must not exceed the manufacturer's component rating which includes axle, suspension, wheels, rims, brakes, and tires as shown on the vehicle certification label or tag, and
b. utility or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Green, Case Number: S-2019-308
...is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the statute." Soto v. State, 2014 OK CR 2, ¶ 7, 326 P.3d 526, 527. We give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844. In a minute order granting ......
-
Leftwich v. State, F–2013–1156.
...is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the statute.” Soto v. State, 2014 OK CR 2, ¶ 7, 326 P.3d 526, 527. When construing criminal statutes, we follow the rule of strict construction. Tran, 2007 OK CR 39, ¶ 8, 172 P.3d at 200. We will not, in ord......
-
Hemphill v. Harbuck, 111,984.
...and Twenty–Sixth Amendments are forfeited upon a felony conviction. Additionally, the First Amendment right to free speech is limited. [326 P.3d 526] ¶ 10 In addition to the loss of rights under the United States Constitution, a convicted felon forfeits many rights under the Oklahoma statut......
-
Detar v. State, F-2019-351
...as expressed in the statute." State v. Green , 2020 OK CR 18, ¶ 5, 474 P.3d 886, 888 (quoting Soto v. State , 2014 OK CR 2, ¶ 7, 326 P.3d 526, 527 ). Additionally, we construe statutes according to the plain and ordinary meaning of their language. Id . The majority's ruling in this case run......