Brian Daron Harris v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2006-1079
Filed: Jun. 26, 2007
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Brian Daron Harris
Summary
Brian Daron Harris appealed his conviction for four counts of First Degree Rape. Conviction and sentence were four concurrent life sentences. Judge Arlene Johnson dissented. Harris wanted to withdraw his guilty plea because he felt he didn't have a good lawyer who was helping him, and he thought he was pressured by his lawyer to plead guilty. The court found that Harris did not have a lawyer present during an important hearing about this issue. Because of this, they decided that he should get a new hearing with a new lawyer to properly address his claims about his first lawyer's help.
Decision
In accordance with Randall and Carey, this matter is hereby REMANDED to the district court for a new hearing on Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw Plea filed on July 6, 2006. At the hearing, Petitioner shall be entitled to independent counsel to represent him regarding the claims raised in that motion against his counsel. Petitioner shall secure new counsel within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to represent him regarding his motion to withdraw plea, either by retaining said counsel or applying for a court appointed attorney. Within thirty (30) days from the date Petitioner obtains new counsel, the trial court shall conduct a new hearing on Petitioner's July 6, 2006, pro se motion and resolve the questions raised therein. The trial court shall ensure a transcript and record of the evidentiary hearing is submitted to this Court and Petitioner within twenty (20) days of the hearing. Within sixty (60) days from the trial court's ruling, Petitioner may file a supplemental brief under case number C-06-1079, if necessary, to challenge the trial court's ruling, in accordance with our rules. However, pursuant to Rule 4.3 (C)(5), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2007), only issues raised in the Motion to Withdraw Plea and ruled on by the District Court may be presented in a Petition for Certiorari to this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Issues
- Was there ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea hearing?
- Did the trial judge violate Petitioner's right to counsel during the motion to withdraw plea hearing?
- Was the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea appropriate given the lack of legal representation for the Petitioner?
- Did the trial court fail to inquire whether the Petitioner desired representation by counsel during the critical stage of the proceedings?
- Was there an actual conflict of interest when the defense counsel was absent during the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea?
Findings
- the court erred by denying the right to counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea
- the case is remanded for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea with independent counsel appointed
C-2006-1079
Jun. 26, 2007
Brian Daron Harris
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Brian Harris. Petitioner entered a blind guilty plea and was convicted of four counts of First Degree Rape in Oklahoma County District Court cases CF-2005-704 and CF-2005-1079. On July 6, 2005, prior to sentencing, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, claiming ineffective assistance and coercion by his counsel, as well as a violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 396 U.S. 868, 90 S.Ct. 140, 24 L.Ed.2d 122 (1969) by the trial judge. On July 21, 2006, the trial judge held a hearing on the pro se motion. Petitioner’s attorney was not present. Nevertheless, the trial judge proceeded with the hearing, noting that defense counsel’s colleague was present. However, the trial judge made no inquiry of the Petitioner as to whether he desired to be represented by counsel or to proceed pro se.
Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Blind Plea was based on an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion to withdraw plea was denied. On September 8, 2006, the case came on for sentencing and the trial court then sentenced Petitioner to four concurrent life sentences. Petitioner now asks this Court to reverse the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Withdraw Plea.
With respect to proposition three of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, we find Petitioner was denied the right to counsel at the hearing on his motion to withdraw plea held on July 21, 2006. During that hearing, Petitioner spoke directly with the trial judge about conversations that took place during the plea hearing [no court reporter was present at that hearing] and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. At the time he presented these claims to the trial court, Petitioner had no legal advocate representing his interests. His court-appointed counsel was not present, and the only advocate for the defendant was a colleague and apparent law firm partner of defense counsel, who did not advocate for Petitioner, but instead made one unhelpful statement regarding DNA results.
In Randall U. State, 1993 OK CR 47, 97, 861 P.2d 314, 315-316, this Court found the 6th Amendment right to assistance of counsel applies to every critical stage of a criminal proceeding and that a hearing on an application to withdraw guilty plea is a ‘critical stage’ which invokes a defendant’s right to counsel. Also, in Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116, this Court found an actual conflict of interest existed between a defendant and his counsel when the defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw guilty plea based upon his counsel’s alleged coercion. The Court reasoned that [d]uring the evidentiary hearing, Petitioner had no attorney taking part in promoting his interests which were in actual conflict with the interests of (his attorney). Id. at [10].
It is the policy of this Court that prior to granting Certiorari the State should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the Petition. However, a review of the transcript of the July 21, 2006, hearing on the Motion to Withdraw Plea reveals no attempt was made by the trial court to inquire if the Petitioner desired representation by counsel or to address the potential conflict of counsel based on the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.
In accordance with Randall and Carey, this matter is hereby REMANDED to the district court for a new hearing on Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw Plea filed on July 6, 2006. At the hearing, Petitioner shall be entitled to independent counsel to represent him regarding the claims raised in that motion against his counsel. Petitioner shall secure new counsel within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to represent him regarding his motion to withdraw plea, either by retaining said counsel or applying for a court appointed attorney. Within thirty (30) days from the date Petitioner obtains new counsel, the trial court shall conduct a new hearing on Petitioner’s July 6, 2006, pro se motion and resolve the questions raised therein. The trial court shall ensure a transcript and record of the evidentiary hearing is submitted to this Court and Petitioner within twenty (20) days of the hearing. Within sixty (60) days from the trial court’s ruling, Petitioner may file a supplemental brief under case number C-06-1079, if necessary, to challenge the trial court’s ruling, in accordance with our rules. However, pursuant to Rule 4.3 (C)(5), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2007), only issues raised in the Motion to Withdraw Plea and ruled on by the District Court may be presented in a Petition for Certiorari to this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Footnotes:
- Miranda v. Arizona, 396 U.S. 868, 90 S.Ct. 140, 24 L.Ed.2d 122 (1969)
- Randall U. State, 1993 OK CR 47, 97, 861 P.2d 314, 315-316
- Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116
- Rule 4.3 (C)(5), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2007)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Rape in the First Degree
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 6 (2011) - Right to Counsel
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1051 (2011) - Withdrawal of Plea
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1080 (2011) - Evidentiary Hearing Rights
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:
- Miranda v. Arizona, 396 U.S. 868, 90 S.Ct. 140, 24 L.Ed.2d 122 (1969)
- Randall U. State, 1993 OK CR 47, 97, 861 P.2d 314, 315-316
- Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116