Ryan Mitchell Cronic v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2018-662

Filed: Aug. 29, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Ryan Mitchell Cronic appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property. The conviction and sentence were upheld, but there was some confusion about the length of his suspended sentence. Judge Kuehn dissented.

Decision

The District Court's revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-2184 and CF-2015-580 is AFFIRMED, but the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion in the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences?
• Did the trial court err in its handling of the discrepancy in the length of Appellant's suspended sentences?

Findings

• The court did not err in revoking Appellant's suspended sentences.
• The evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the suspended sentences.
• The matter is remanded to the District Court to address the inconsistency in sentencing.

RE-2018-662

Aug. 29, 2019

Ryan Mitchell Cronic

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant, Ryan Mitchell Cronic, plead guilty to three felony counts of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2013-2184. He was sentenced to five years suspended on each count. Appellant was ordered to pay restitution. Appellant also plead guilty to one felony count of Concealing Stolen Property in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2015-580. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment, with sentence suspended in full and ordered to run concurrently with Case No. CF-2013-2184, with credit for time served.

The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence for each case alleging that Appellant violated the terms of his suspended sentences by failing to pay supervision fees and restitution. Appellant stipulated to these allegations and was ordered to serve thirty days in the custody of the Oklahoma County Sheriff. The applications to revoke were subsequently dismissed upon a motion by the State.

The State filed a second Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence for each case alleging Appellant again failed to pay supervision fees and restitution. These Applications were amended to include Appellant’s new charges of Aggravated Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, Driving While Revoked, and Failure to Provide Proof of Security Verification. Following a hearing on the State’s applications, the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge, ordered Appellant’s suspended sentences revoked in full.

Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences raising the sole proposition of error that the revocation of his suspended sentences was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the order of the District Court revoking Appellant’s suspended sentences in full. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or in part is within the sound discretion of the trial court and such decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, ¶ 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557. “An ‘abuse of discretion’ has been defined by this Court as a ‘clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application.” Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, ¶ 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion.

A review of the record shows a discrepancy concerning Appellant’s sentences. The Judgment and Sentence for both cases reflect Appellant was given a ten year suspended sentence, whereas all other documents in the record refer to a suspended sentence of five years. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the District Court with instructions to address the inconsistency. See Sears v. State, 2019 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, P.3d.

DECISION

The District Court’s revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-2184 and CF-2015-580 is AFFIRMED, but the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 982a.
2. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, ¶ 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557.
3. Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, ¶ 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183.
4. Sears v. State, 2019 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, P.3d.
5. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

No Oklahoma statutes found.

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, I 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557.
• Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, I 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183.
• Sears v. State, 2019 OK CR 8, I 8, P.3d.