Cesar Jurado v The State Of Oklahoma

F 2018-0812

Filed: Sep. 19, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Cesar Jurado appealed his conviction for several crimes, including Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute and others. His original sentences were deferred, but they were accelerated after he was charged with new crimes. The court gave him a life sentence and other sentences, which will run at the same time. Jurado argued that the evidence used to speed up his sentences was not reliable, but the court decided that the previous ruling was correct. The acceleration of Jurado's deferred sentences was affirmed. Judge Rowland dissented.

Decision

The acceleration of Appellant's deferred sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2014-8607, CF-2015-5536, and CF-2015-6471 is AFFIRMED. 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 filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there an abuse of discretion in accelerating Appellant's deferred sentences based on the testimony of an eyewitness?
• did the trial court err in allowing the introduction of the transcript of Appellant's preliminary hearing into evidence at the acceleration hearing?
• were the violations of conditions of the deferred sentence proven by a preponderance of the evidence?
• is the decision to accelerate a deferred sentence within the discretion of the trial court?

Findings

• the court did not err in allowing the introduction of evidence at the acceleration hearing
• an abuse of discretion was not shown
• the acceleration of Appellant's deferred sentences is affirmed

F 2018-0812

Sep. 19, 2019

Cesar Jurado

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

JOHN D. HADDEN HUDSON, JUDGE:

Appellant, Cesar Jurado, entered pleas of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County on December 2, 2015, in the following cases:

CF-2014-8607: Count 1 – Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute, a felony; Count 2 – Driving While Privilege Suspended, a misdemeanor; and Count 3 – Failure to Carry Valid Security Verification, a misdemeanor.

CF-2015-5536: Count 1 – Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute, a felony; and Count 3 – Possession of an Offensive Weapon While Committing a Felony, a felony.

CF-2015-6471: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute, a felony.

Count 2 – Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Count 4 – Possession of an Offensive Weapon While Committing a Felony, were dismissed. Sentencing was delayed until September 11, 2016, while Appellant was committed to the Delayed Sentencing Program for Youthful Offenders. After successfully completing the Delayed Sentencing Program, Appellant’s sentences were deferred until June 14, 2026.

The State filed an application to accelerate Appellant’s deferred sentences on January 18, 2018. The State alleged Appellant committed the new crimes of Murder in the First Degree and Assault with a Deadly Weapon as alleged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-0659. Following a hearing on July 26, 2018, before the Honorable Bill Graves, District Judge, the State’s motion was granted.

Appellant was sentenced in Case No. CF-2014-8607 to life imprisonment on Count 1, one year on Count 2, and thirty days on Count 3. In Case No. CF-2015-5536, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on Count 1 and ten years on Count 3. Appellant was also given life imprisonment in Case No. CF-2015-6471. The sentences in these three cases were ordered to run concurrently.

Appellant appeals from the acceleration of his deferred sentences. On appeal, Appellant raised the sole proposition of error that it was an abuse of discretion to accelerate Appellant’s deferred sentence based on the incompetent, uncorroborated testimony of an unreliable eyewitness who did not testify in person such that the court could not make a credibility determination.

We affirm the trial court’s order to accelerate Appellant’s deferred sentences. The District Court did not err in allowing the State to introduce into evidence at the acceleration hearing the transcript of Appellant’s preliminary hearing in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-659. See Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18, ¶ 15, 188 P.3d 201. Counsel for Appellant at the acceleration hearing represented Appellant at the preliminary hearing. The appeal record shows that counsel for Appellant confronted and cross-examined the witnesses during the preliminary hearing. At an acceleration hearing, the court only makes a factual determination involving the existence of a violation of the terms of the deferred sentence. The consequence of the judicial determination that any conditions of the deferred judgment have been violated is to enter judgment and impose sentence. Violations of conditions of a deferred sentence need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.

The decision to accelerate a deferred sentence lies within the discretion of the trial court. Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 10, 990 P.2d 894. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the matter at issue. An abuse of discretion has also been described as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, ¶ 5, 298 P.3d 1192.

In this case, Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion.

DECISION

The acceleration of Appellant’s deferred sentences in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2014-8607, CF-2015-5536, and CF-2015-6471 is AFFIRMED. 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 filing of this decision.

OPINION BY: HUDSON, J. LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: RECUSE

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18.
2. Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18, ¶ 15, 188 P.3d 201.
3. Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 10, 990 P.2d 894.
4. State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, ¶ 5, 298 P.3d 1192.

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:

• Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18, I 15, 188 P.3d 201
• Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 10, 990 P.2d 894
• State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, I 5, 298 P.3d 1192