Oglesby v. State
Annotate this CaseAppellant was charged with and convicted of possession of a regulated firearm by a person with a disqualifying drug conviction. The statute under which Appellant was convicted carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years incarceration. Following his sentencing under that statute, Appellant appealed, arguing that his sentence was illegal because, on the same facts, he could have been charged and convicted under a different statute that carries a more lenient sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State’s Attorney had discretion to charge Appellant with a violation of either statute at issue in this case, and the decision was not subject to judicial oversight as to whether the statute carrying the mandatory minimum sentence or the statute with the more lenient penalty should have been charged; and (2) there was no need to apply the rule of lenity in these circumstances because there was no unresolvable ambiguity in the statute in question.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.