Michael Oxley is free.
The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office charged a security guard with twenty-six criminal counts arising from his work at a pain clinic. UNCUFF funded his defense. Every count was dismissed, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that the ruling barred further prosecution.
A security guard was charged as part of a “pill mill” prosecution.
Michael Oxley, a reserve deputy with the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office, was hired to provide security at an Oklahoma City pain-management clinic. When the State alleged that the clinic was a “pill mill,” the Attorney General’s Office charged Mike with twenty-six criminal counts. The State dismissed one of them, count 13, at its own request on March 5, 2020. The other twenty-five were pending when the district court ruled. Docket, State v. Jenkins, No. CF-2016-2325 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.), counts 1–26 (Oxley) and minutes of Mar. 5 and July 20, 2020; Opinion, State v. Jenkins, No. S-2020-500 (Okla. Crim. App. Sept. 23, 2021) (not for publication), at 8, 28.
Mike says investigators asked him to testify about events he had not witnessed and that he refused to provide testimony he could not truthfully give. He believes the expansion of the charges was connected to that refusal. He maintained that he had committed no crime, faced the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison, and lacked the resources to fight the State alone.
The prosecution ended without a trial.
UNCUFF retained Oklahoma attorney Jim Hankins for Mike. The resulting rulings disposed of every charge and prevented the State from bringing the same prosecution again.
UNCUFF funded counsel
Hankins represented Mike in the district court and on the State’s attempted appeal. State’s Notice of Intent to Appeal, No. CF-2016-2325 (July 29, 2020), at 4; Opinion, State v. Jenkins, at 34.
The district court dismissed every remaining count
Mike’s defense challenged the legal and evidentiary sufficiency of the Information. After hearings in March and July 2020, District Judge Ray C. Elliott sustained the demurrer as to every count then pending. The State’s own notice characterized the ruling as quashing the charges “for insufficient evidence.” Opinion, State v. Jenkins, at 2 n.3, 5–6, 28; State’s Notice of Intent to Appeal at 1.
The State could not appeal or refile
The Attorney General’s Office attempted to appeal. On September 23, 2021, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that the State had no authorized appeal from the ruling and that, because the district court had not ordered a new Information, the dismissal “operates as a bar to further prosecution.” Opinion, State v. Jenkins, at 28–30, 33; Mandate (Sept. 23, 2021).
Every charge was dismissed, and Mike remains free.
The prosecution threatened the rest of Mike’s life. It ended with no surviving count and no power to try the case again. UNCUFF believes the result shows what funded defense can accomplish when a person has the resources to challenge the State at every stage.
Mike’s was not a post-conviction case. UNCUFF took it on several years ago, while the charges were still pending, so that he could fight them before trial rather than after a conviction. Today UNCUFF’s work concentrates on people who have already been convicted and who UNCUFF believes are innocent, such as Daniel Holtzclaw and Jay B. Van Story.
Help fund the next defense.
Mike had counsel with the time and resources to challenge the prosecution. Your support helps UNCUFF provide that opportunity in other cases.