Jeremy David Manders v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2005-536

Filed: Jul. 19, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Jeremy David Manders

Summary

**Jeremy David Manders appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marihuana and Omitting to Provide for Minor Child. Conviction and sentence were reversed. Judge Arlene Johnson dissented.**

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the Ottawa County District Court revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is REVERSED. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter is REMANDED to the District Court where Appellant shall be given the choice of being allowed to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the State's application to revoke, or maintaining his pleas of guilty and his revoked sentences shall be modified by the District Court to run concurrently. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. IT IS so ORDERED.

Issues

• Was there a violation of due process in the revocation hearing regarding the assurances given to the Appellant about concurrent sentences?
• Did the Appellant enter pleas of guilty based on the representations made by the prosecutor and his counsel?
• Should the Appellant be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas or have his revoked sentences modified to run concurrently?

Findings

• The court erred in revoking Appellant's suspended sentences based on the misrepresentation regarding the concurrency of sentences.
• Appellant's right to due process and a fair revocation hearing was violated.
• The order of the District Court revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is reversed.
• This matter is remanded to allow Appellant the option to withdraw his guilty pleas or to modify his sentences to run concurrently.

RE-2005-536

Jul. 19, 2006

Jeremy David Manders

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ORDER GRANTING REVOCATION APPEAL

On May 5, 2000, Appellant entered a plea of guilty before the Honorable Robert Reavis, Associate District Judge, to the offense of Unlawful Possession of Marihuana in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-2000-91. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was sentenced to ten (10) years’ imprisonment, with four (4) years to serve and six (6) years suspended. On December 2, 2003, Appellant entered pleas of guilty before the Honorable Robert G. Haney, District Judge of Ottawa County District Court, to one count in each case, Case Nos. CF-2003-420 and CF-2003-438, for the offenses of Omitting to Provide for Minor Child. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was sentenced to ten (10) years’ imprisonment, with all but the first six (6) months suspended, for each case.

On July 2, 2004, the State filed an Application to Revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences, alleging Appellant had committed the new crime of Possession of Pseudoephedrine with Intent to Manufacture, as alleged in Ottawa County District Court Case No. CF-04-259, and that Appellant had not paid his court costs or child support. On September 22, 2004, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke suspended sentences, adding the new crimes of Possession of Marijuana, Driving Under Suspension and Obstruction of Official Duty, as alleged in Crawford County, Kansas, District Court Case No. 04CR304G.

On April 29, 2005, a hearing on the State’s Application to Revoke was held before Judge Haney. At the conclusion of that hearing, four (4) years of Appellant’s suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2000-91 were ordered revoked, to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in Case Nos. CF-2003-420 and CF-2003-438. In Case No. CF-2003-420, nine (9) years of Appellant’s suspended sentence were ordered revoked. In Case No. CF-2003-438, nine and one-half (9 1/2) years were ordered revoked. The sentences in Case Nos. CF-2003-420 and CF-2003-438 were ordered to be served concurrently with each other. Appellant is currently incarcerated.

In his only assignment of error, Appellant asserts he only pled guilty to the allegations contained in the State’s application to revoke, after being assured by the prosecutor and his counsel that all of the charges would be run concurrently. After a review of the record on appeal, we agree. The record clearly reveals Appellant entered his pleas of guilty, i.e., stipulation to the State’s allegations in the application to revoke, based upon the representation and assurances of both the State and his attorney that he would receive sentences totaling nine and one-half years in length. That did not happen. Therefore, Appellant’s right to due process and a revocation hearing was violated.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the Ottawa County District Court revoking Appellant’s suspended sentences is REVERSED. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter is REMANDED to the District Court where Appellant shall be given the choice of being allowed to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the State’s application to revoke, or maintaining his pleas of guilty, and his revoked sentences shall be modified by the District Court to run concurrently. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. IT IS so ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 19th day of July, 2006.

CHAPEL S. CHARLES S. Judge

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge

ATTEST: Clerk

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Cf. Manning v. State, 1962 OK CR 105 , 374 P.2d 796, wherein this Court held that where it reasonably appears a plea of guilty was influenced by persons in apparent authority which has led a defendant to believe that by entering a plea of guilty, his punishment would be mitigated, he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentencing
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1051 - Pleas
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - Criminal procedure and appeals

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:

• Manning v. State, 1962 OK CR 105, 374 P.2d 796