Sherice Shauta Martin v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2004-850

Filed: Nov. 30, 2005

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Sherice Shauta Martin appealed her conviction for five crimes, including Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Distribution of Cocaine. Her conviction sentence was seven years for most counts and one year for a misdemeanor, all to be served at the same time, except for one year in a work-release program. The court reviewed her reasons for wanting to withdraw her guilty pleas, including claims of misunderstanding and lack of agreement. The court decided that her pleas were willingly made and that there was enough proof for her convictions, except for one misdemeanor charge, which they dismissed. Overall, her appeal was denied except for that one count. Judge A. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The Petition for Certiorari is hereby DENIED as to each of Petitioner's convictions and sentences, except for the misdemeanor count 2 in CF-02-3898, which is hereby REVERSED and DISMISSED. 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there a knowing and voluntary entry of the guilty pleas?
• were the guilty pleas entered voluntarily?
• was there a sufficient factual basis for accepting the guilty pleas?
• should the written judgment and sentence be corrected to reflect the sentences imposed?

Findings

• the court erred in finding the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered
• the court erred in finding the guilty plea was voluntarily entered
• evidence was not sufficient to support the misdemeanor charge, count two in CF-02-3898
• the written judgment and sentence should be corrected to reflect that all sentences were to be served concurrently

C-2004-850

Nov. 30, 2005

Sherice Shauta Martin

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE: Petitioner entered a negotiated guilty plea in three separate cases, consolidated for appeal, and was convicted in Oklahoma County of the five following crimes: in CF-02-3581, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 645; in CF-02-3898, Assisting a Prisoner to Escape, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 437 (Count 1) and Obstructing an Officer in the Performance of her Official Duties, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 540 (Count 2); and in CF-03-2174, Distribution of CDS (cocaine base), in violation of 63 O.S.2001, § 2-401 (Count 1), and Possession of CDS in the Presence of a Child, in violation of 63 O.S.2001, § 2-402 (Count 2). In accordance with the plea agreement, she was sentenced to seven (7) years on each conviction, except count 2 of CF-02-3898, a misdemeanor, for which she was sentenced to one year. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently and all were suspended, except for one year in CF-02-3581, which was to be served in the Avalon work release program, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement.

Petitioner filed a pro se motion to withdraw her plea, which resulted in an order from this Court for an evidentiary hearing on her motion. Following that hearing, the trial court denied the same. Petitioner now appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion to withdraw plea. Petitioner raises the following proposition of error in support of her Petition for Writ of Certiorari:
I. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw her guilty pleas because the record shows they were not knowingly and voluntarily entered, but rather were made as a result of ignorance, confusion, and misunderstanding;
II. Petitioner should be permitted to withdraw her guilty pleas because they were not voluntarily entered;
III. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw her guilty pleas because the factual bases for accepting them were insufficient; and
IV. The written judgment and sentence should be corrected to reflect accurately the sentenced imposed.

After thoroughly considering these propositions and the entire record before us, we deny the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, except as follows. With respect to propositions one and two, we find the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and was not made as a result of ignorance, confusion, and misunderstanding. King U. State, 553 P.2d 529 (Okl.Cr.1976.) With respect to proposition three, we find a sufficient factual basis supporting each of Petitioner’s convictions exists within the record on appeal, except for the misdemeanor charge, count two in CF-02-3898. With respect to proposition four, we find that, pursuant to the plea agreement, all of Petitioner’s sentences in Oklahoma County cases CF-02-3581, CF-02-3898, and CF-03-2174 were to be served concurrently, and should so reflect in the judgments and sentences.

DECISION
The Petition for Certiorari is hereby DENIED as to each of Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, except for the misdemeanor count 2 in CF-02-3898, which is hereby REVERSED and DISMISSED. 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE D. FRED DOAK, SPECIAL JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
FRANK KIRK
1330 NORTH CLASSEN BLVD.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73106
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

LEE ANN JONES PETERS
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
PAMELA STILLINGS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, V.P.J.
CHAPEL, P.J.: CONCUR
C. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR

RA 3

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. King U. State, 553 P.2d 529 (Okl.Cr.1976.)
2. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2005)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 (2001) - Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 437 (2001) - Assisting a Prisoner to Escape
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540 (2001) - Obstructing an Officer in Performance of Duties
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401 (2001) - Distribution of CDS
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 (2001) - Possession of CDS in Presence of a Child

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:

• King v. State, 553 P.2d 529 (Okl.Cr.1976)