Jeremy Clarence Rankin v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2004-957

Filed: Jun. 13, 2005

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Jeremy Clarence Rankin

Summary

Jeremy Clarence Rankin appealed his conviction for several cases in which he entered guilty pleas. The conviction and sentence were sent back to the district court for a new hearing on Rankin's request to withdraw his pleas. Judge Lumpkin dissented, believing that Rankin's claims about poor lawyer help were not supported by evidence, and he thought the original decision should stand.

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that Rankin's Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED and this cause shall be REMANDED to the District Court for a new hearing on Rankin's motion to withdraw plea. IT IS SO ORDERED. WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 13th day of June ,2005.

Issues

• Was there ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea withdrawal hearing?
• Did the trial court adequately address the conflict of interest presented between Rankin and his attorney?
• Was Rankin's understanding of the implications and potential range of sentences as explained by counsel sufficient?
• Should new conflict-free counsel be appointed for Rankin at the new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea?
• Was the original plea entered by Rankin knowing and voluntary?

Findings

• the court erred
• the allegations placed counsel in a potential position of being a witness adverse to his client
• the allegations prevented counsel from being an effective advocate
• the petition for certiorari is granted
• the cause shall be remanded for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea
• conflict free counsel shall be appointed

C-2004-957

Jun. 13, 2005

Jeremy Clarence Rankin

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ORDER GRANTING CERTIORARI AND REMANDING FOR A NEW HEARING ON THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA

Jeremy Clarence Rankin, Petitioner, entered pleas of guilty in Garfield County District Court Case Nos. CF-2002-501, CF-2003-119, CF-2003-317 and CF-2003-474. He filed a motion to withdraw pleas which was denied by the trial court. He is now before this Court on Certiorari appeal from that decision. Part of Rankin’s claim in his motion to withdraw plea at the trial court was that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because counsel was ineffective in explaining to the Defendant the implications and potential range of sentences as demonstrated by the Defendant’s understanding of his eligibility for suspended sentences. Rankin was represented at the plea hearing and at the motion to withdraw hearing by the same appointed attorney. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, however, the attorney did not present any argument, nor did he present any witnesses. The attorney merely stated, I will stand on the matters set forth in the application to withdraw plea.

We find based on the record that an actual conflict existed between Rankin and counsel at the motion to withdraw hearing, because the allegations placed counsel in the potential position of being a witness adverse to his client. See Carey U. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118, and Rule 1.7(b), Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 3-A. Furthermore, the allegations prevented counsel from being an effective advocate for his client; therefore, we remand this case to the district court for a new hearing on Rankin’s motion to withdraw. The trial court shall appoint conflict free counsel to represent Rankin at this hearing, if Rankin remains indigent as previously found by the trial court.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that Rankin’s Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED and this cause shall be REMANDED to the District Court for a new hearing on Rankin’s motion to withdraw plea. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Carey U. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118
2. Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 3-A

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentence for certain crimes
• Okla. Stat. tit. 5 § 1.7(b) (2001) - Conflict of interest for attorneys

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:

• Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118