Aminu Zegariah Tijuani Inuwa v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2007-968
Filed: May 15, 2008
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Aminu Inuwa
Summary
Aminu Inuwa appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm after a felony. Conviction and sentence were 23 years imprisonment and a $500 fine for robbery, and 15 years imprisonment and a $500 fine for possession, served at the same time. Judge Lewis dissented.
Decision
Petitioner's Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and cause REMANDED for a proper hearing on the Application to Withdraw Guilty Pleas. 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 delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- was there a conflict of interest that required the appointment of new counsel for the hearing on the request to withdraw pleas?
- did the trial court deprive the petitioner of due process rights by rescinding its decision to allow the plea withdrawal?
- was the petitioner denied the effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on the motion to withdraw pleas?
Findings
- the trial court erred by not appointing new counsel due to a conflict of interests
- the trial court deprived Petitioner of his due process rights when it rescinded its decision to withdraw pleas
- Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw pleas
C-2007-968
May 15, 2008
Aminu Zegariah Tijuani Inuwa
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
CHAPEL, JUDGE:
Aminu Inuwa pled no contest to two counts: Robbery with a Firearm After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2006-4627. After a hearing on September 10, 2007, the Honorable Jesse Harris sentenced Inuwa to twenty-three (23) years’ imprisonment and a $500.00 fine for the Robbery with a Firearm and fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment and a $500.00 fine for Possessing a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
Inuwa timely filed an Application to Withdraw Plea on September 12, 2007, which was denied after a September 13, 2007, hearing. Inuwa timely appealed to this Court on September 24, 2007.
Inuwa raises the following propositions of error:
I. Because defense counsel notified the court of a conflict of interests, the trial court erred by not appointing new counsel to represent Petitioner at the hearing on his request to withdraw pleas.
II. Because the trial court granted Petitioner’s request to withdraw his pleas in open court, the trial court deprived Petitioner of his due process rights when it rescinded its decision.
III. Petitioner was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw pleas.
After thoroughly considering the entire appellate record, including the original record, transcripts, briefs and exhibits of the parties, we find that reversal is required because Inuwa was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, we find in Proposition I that Inuwa was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to an attorney-created conflict of interest.¹
Decision
Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and cause REMANDED for a proper hearing on the Application to Withdraw Guilty Pleas. 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 delivery and filing of this decision.
¹ Carey U. State, 902 P.2d 1116, 1117 (Okl.Cr.1995)(conflict of interest found where petitioner alleged trial attorney coerced plea). Here, Inuwa essentially represented himself at the hearing on his Application to withdraw his guilty plea. Trial counsel asked to be permitted to withdraw and that new counsel be appointed on the Motion to Withdraw he filed for Inuwa. Inuwa’s central complaint was the quality of trial counsel’s representation before and at the plea. Inuwa reluctantly admitted that he had been satisfied with counsel’s representation at his plea, although it is fairly obvious from reading the record that he was not.²
ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
BRIAN MARTIN
1535 S. MEMORIAL, SUITE 110
TULSA, OKLAHOMA
COURTNEY SMITH
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TULSA COUNTY COURTHOUSE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL
MARK HOOVER
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
STEPHANIE D. JACKSON
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 NE 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
OPINION BY: CHAPEL, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR
C. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR
Footnotes:
- Carey U. State, 902 P.2d 1116, 1117 (Okl.Cr.1995)(conflict of interest found where petitioner alleged trial attorney coerced plea).
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:
No case citations found.