Janet Marie Ruff v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2006-363

Filed: Dec. 8, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Janet Marie Ruff appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The court affirmed the conviction and modified her sentence to six years of incarceration. Judge Gary L. Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the Oklahoma County District Court revoking Appellant's sentence in Case No. CF-2002-4814 is AFFIRMED. However, we hereby MODIFY the order of revocation to six (6) years. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to support the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence?
• Did the District Court abuse its discretion in revoking the suspended sentence?
• Was the modification of the revocation sentence to six years appropriate?

Findings

• the order of the Oklahoma County District Court revoking Appellant's sentence is AFFIRMED
• the order of revocation is MODIFIED to six (6) years incarceration

RE-2006-363

Dec. 8, 2006

Janet Marie Ruff

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ORDER AFFIRMING REVOCATION OF SUSPENDED SENTENCE BUT MODIFYING SENTENCE TO SIX YEARS INCARCERATION

On July 1, 2003, Appellant entered a plea of guilty in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2002-4814, to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine) with Intent to Distribute. Appellant was sentenced to twelve (12) years incarceration, all suspended upon completion of inpatient drug therapeutic treatment. On March 25, 2005, the State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence.¹ On June 21, 2005, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence.² On November 8, 2005, Appellant signed a stipulation to the allegations in the Application to Revoke. On November 29, 2005, a hearing was held before the Honorable Twyla Mason Gray, District Judge. Appellant entered a blind plea to the application and her sentence was revoked in full.³ It is from this order of revocation that Appellant appeals.

It is well settled that a violation of a suspended sentence need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, ¶ 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322. Further, a District Court’s decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or in part is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard. Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, ¶ 6, 675 P.2d 451, 453. After a review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the Oklahoma County District Court revoking Appellant’s sentence in Case No. CF-2002-4814 is AFFIRMED. However, we hereby MODIFY the order of revocation to six (6) years. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. IT IS SO ORDERED.

______

Chad 8.Oal
CHARLES S. CHAPEL Presiding Judge
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge
ARLENE JOHNSON, Judge
DAVID B. LEWIS, Judge

ATTEST: Michaels Rich Clerk

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. The application was filed after a violation report was filed on August 27, 2004, alleging Appellant had failed to report to her probation officer, failed to make payments toward her probation fees and court costs, failed to perform random drug testing, failed to maintain employment and failed to comply with mental health and substance abuse evaluation. (O.R. 56)
2. The amended application alleged Appellant had committed the new offenses of possession of drugs (marijuana) and possession of drug paraphernalia, as alleged in Lincoln County District Court Case No. CF-05-74. (O.R. 60)
3. Appellant's subsequent request to withdraw her plea to the application was denied by the District is from this order of revocation that Appellant appeals. It is well settled that a violation of a suspended sentence need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, I 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322.
4. Further, a District Court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or in part is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard. Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, I 6, 675 P.2d 451, 453.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Revocation of Suspended Sentence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 (2006) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2006) - MANDATE Issuance

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:

• Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, I 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322
• Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, I 6, 675 P.2d 451, 453