Stephen Mark Libera v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2004-1017

Filed: Dec. 16, 2005

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Stephen Mark Libera

Summary

Stephen Mark Libera appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. Conviction and sentence were two years in prison, a $500 fine, and a $250 fee for crime victims. Judge Chapel wrote the opinion, while Judges Lumpkin, C. Johnson, and A. Johnson agreed with the results. In this case, Libera had originally pled guilty but later wanted to take back his plea. He argued that he didn't really understand what he was agreeing to when he pled guilty because he thought he would get a deferred sentence, which means he wouldn't have a criminal record if he did well. The court did not follow this plan, instead giving him a two-year prison sentence. The court decided that Libera should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea since it seemed he made it by mistake and without good legal advice. Therefore, the court agreed to let Libera's case go back to a lower court for more action consistent with their ruling.

Decision

Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch18, App.2004, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was Mr. Libera allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty because it was not knowingly and intelligently entered into?
• Did counsel abandon Mr. Libera's cause, forcing him to proceed without the benefit of counsel during a critical stage of the proceeding?

Findings

• the trial court abused its discretion in denying Libera's motion to withdraw his guilty plea
• the resolution of Proposition I renders moot Libera's denial of counsel claim

C-2004-1017

Dec. 16, 2005

Stephen Mark Libera

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, PRESIDING JUDGE: Stephen Mark Libera was charged by Information in Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2004-166, with Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1713. Mr. Libera waived his preliminary hearing. On April 19, 2004, Libera entered a plea of guilty before the Honorable Tom C. Gillert, District Judge. A Pre-Sentence Investigation report was ordered and obtained. On July 16, 2004, a sentencing hearing was held before Judge Tom C. Gillert, who sentenced Libera to imprisonment for two (2) years, a $500 fine, and a $250 Victim of Crime Assessment. Libera filed a timely application to withdraw his guilty plea on July 23, 2004. A hearing was held August 12, 2004, and the application was denied. The current petition for certiorari followed.1 Libera raises the following propositions of error:

1 This Court ordered and received a Response from the State.

I. Mr. Libera should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty because the plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered into by petitioner; instead it was made with inadvertence and by mistake.

II. Mr. Libera’s case should be remanded to the district court because counsel abandoned his client’s cause, forcing Mr. Libera to proceed without the benefit of counsel at this critical stage of the proceeding.

In Proposition I, Libera argues that he was not properly advised by the court of the consequences of his guilty plea.2 He argues that because the content of his plea was not entirely clear, on either the plea form or at the plea hearing, he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. While the court made no explicit mention of a plea agreement at the plea hearing, the plea acceptance form indicates that there was a plea agreement.4 The handwritten response to the second part of question 19 on the guilty plea acceptance form describes the plea agreement as follows: 2 YR – PSI, 500 FINE, 250 VCF + cost 80 HRS def.5 Libera indicated at the original acceptance of the plea hearing that he understood probation was part of the plea agreement. In addition, the court made references to deferring something and probation, and indicated that it would consider probation and would sentence Libera based upon the recommendation of the PSI.6 The State acknowledges that the court sentenced Libera to imprisonment for two years, even though the recommendation in the PSI [was] that the defendant be granted probation.7 At the plea withdrawal hearing, Libera testified that his attorney told him the State had recommended a deferred sentence and that he pled guilty based upon his understanding that his sentence would be deferred. He also testified that at the time he pled guilty, he did not understand that any attempt to withdraw his plea would be through an appeal process and that it could be denied. Libera further testified, [A]11 we talked about was a deferred sentence. That’s the only reason I pled guilty. I wouldn’t have pled guilty for any other reason. [H]aving a felony conviction on my record is going to follow me for the rest of my life. I’m a white collar worker, Your Honor.

The record in this case is far from clear as to what the precise plea agreement was regarding probation, the deferral of sentencing, and the trial court’s intent to follow the recommendation of the PSI.8 Although the trial court’s sentence did not follow the recommendation of the PSI, the record suggests that Libera sincerely and reasonably believed that the plea agreement was that the recommendation of the PSI would be followed (regarding probation) and that if the recommendation was not followed, he would be allowed to withdraw his plea. When the trial court chose not to follow the recommendation of the PSI, Libera should have been allowed to withdraw his plea. Hence, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Libera’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Regarding Proposition II, the resolution of Proposition I renders moot Libera’s denial of counsel claim. After thorough consideration of the entire appellate record, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find that the petition for certiorari should be granted.

Decision

Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch18, App.2004, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

8 Snug Harbor Ass’n, Inc. v. State, 1968 OK CR 145, 444 P.2d 249, 251-52 (Where it appears that misapprehension, inadvertence, ignorance, or misunderstanding may have constituted abuse of discretion.).

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1713
2. King v. State, 1976 OK CR 103, 553 P.2d 531, 535-36
3. Id.
4. Snug Harbor Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 1968 OK CR 145, 444 P.2d 249, 251-52
5. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch18, App.2004

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1713 (2001) - Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property

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:

• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
• King v. State, 1976 OK CR 103, 553 P.2d 531, 535-36
• Snug Harbor Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 1968 OK CR 145, 444 P.2d 249, 251-52