Charlie Franklin Roberts v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2016-38

Filed: Nov. 7, 2016

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Charlie Franklin Roberts

Summary

Charlie Franklin Roberts appealed his conviction for violating a protective order, kidnapping, and domestic assault. His convictions included a one-year county jail sentence and thirty years in prison for the felonies. The court initially denied his request to withdraw his plea. However, Roberts argued he didn't get proper help from his lawyer and wasn’t correctly informed about his plea’s consequences. The State agreed that he didn't have effective legal counsel during this process. The Court of Criminal Appeals decided to let Roberts have a new hearing with a different lawyer to help him withdraw his plea. The court’s order was to give Roberts another chance to explain why he should be allowed to change his plea. No judges dissented.

Decision

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

Issues

• Was there ineffective assistance of counsel for the petitioner?
• Did the petitioner receive misadvice regarding the consequences of his plea?
• Was there a sufficient factual basis for the plea?
• Did cumulative error deprive the petitioner of a fair proceeding?

Findings

• the court erred in denying the motion to withdraw plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel
• the court found that petitioner was misadvised as to the consequences of his plea
• the court determined there was not a sufficient factual basis for the plea
• the cumulative error deprived Mr. Roberts of a fair proceeding

C-2016-38

Nov. 7, 2016

Charlie Franklin Roberts

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Charlie Franklin Roberts, Petitioner, entered a plea of no contest to the crime of violation of a protective order in Carter County District Court case number CM-2015-64, and he entered a plea of no contest to the crimes of kidnapping and domestic assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, both after former conviction of two or more felonies, in Carter County case number CF-2015-39, before the Honorable Thomas K. Baldwin, Associate District Judge. Roberts was sentenced to one year in the county jail and a $1,000 fine on the misdemeanor and thirty (30) years imprisonment on each of the felony crimes. The felony sentences were ordered to run concurrently, but consecutively with the misdemeanor sentence. Roberts, through counsel, filed a motion to withdraw, which alleged no grounds for the withdrawal. After a hearing, the motion was denied by the trial court. Roberts is now before this Court on Certiorari appeal from that decision raising the following propositions of error:

1. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel.
2. Petitioner was misadvised as to the consequences of his plea.
3. There was not a sufficient factual basis for the plea.
4. Cumulative error deprived Mr. Roberts of a fair proceeding.

In most cases, this Court reviews the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. In doing so, this Court’s only concern is whether the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and whether the district court accepting the plea had jurisdiction to accept the plea. Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶¶ 11-13, 362 P.3d 650, 653-54. In other cases, this Court will take remedial action when Constitutional standards are not met. Our review of Petitioner’s propositions of error prompted this Court to direct that the State respond to Petitioner’s brief in this Certiorari appeal. The State filed its response on October 27, 2016. In its response brief, the State confesses that Petitioner did not receive effective, conflict-free counsel at the hearing on his motion to withdraw plea. The hearing on the motion to withdraw plea which is required by Rule 4.2, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2015), is a critical stage of a criminal prosecution which invokes a defendant’s right to effective, conflict-free counsel. Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, ¶ 8, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118. Counsel cannot be effective if conflicts of interest, no matter how subtle, dull the zeal of undivided loyalty. Banks v. State, 1991 OK CR 51, ¶ 34, 810 P.2d 1286, 1296. Petitioner was not represented by conflict-free counsel on his motion to withdraw plea. Here, Petitioner’s perspectives regarding the plea discussions with his attorney were completely divergent from the perspective of his attorney. Consequently, counsel’s representation at the plea hearing was oriented to protect [counsel’s] interest rather than to establish [the facts supporting Petitioner’s] motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Carey, 1995 OK CR 55, ¶ 7, 902 P.2d at 1118.

Petitioner’s disdain for counsel began before sentencing, when he indicated that he wished to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, but counsel did not file the proper motion. The trial court was willing to allow Roberts to file a motion to withdraw plea before sentencing, but counsel requested that sentencing proceed, without consulting Petitioner. The record clearly reflects that Petitioner was not represented by conflict-free counsel, thus we grant the writ of certiorari and remand this case for the appointment of new conflict-free counsel, and direct the trial court to afford Roberts and new counsel an opportunity to file, within twenty (20) days of this order, a motion setting forth all available legal and factual grounds supporting withdrawal of the guilty plea. We further direct the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion within thirty (30) days of its filing, as required by Rule 4.2(B). In the event that the motion to withdraw the plea is denied, counsel for Roberts shall thereafter timely comply with this Court’s Rule 4.2(D) and all other rules for initiating an appeal from any order denying relief in the court below. No matter may be raised in the petition for a writ of certiorari unless the same has been raised in the application to withdraw the plea, which must accompany the records filed with this Court. Rule 4.2(B).

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

IT IS so ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 7th day of November, 2016.

CLANCY SMITH, Presiding Judge
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge
ARLENE JOHNSON, Judge
DAVID B. LEWIS, Judge
ROBERT L. HUDSON, Judge

ATTEST: Clerk

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Roberts was sentenced to one year in the county jail and a $1,000 fine on the misdemeanor and thirty (30) years imprisonment on each of the felony crimes.
2. The State dismissed charges of first-degree burglary and rape by instrumentation in exchange for the plea.
3. Weeks U. State, 2015 OK CR 16, 11 11-13, 362 P.3d 650, 653-54.
4. Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 1 8, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118.
5. Banks v. State, 1991 OK 2 C-2016-38, Roberts V. State CR 51, 1 34, 810 P.2d 1286, 1296.
6. Rule 4.2, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2015).
7. Rule 4.2(B).
8. Rule 4.2(D).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentencing for felony offenses
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11-801(B)(1) (2011) - Plea withdrawal
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 (2015) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 4.2 (2015) - Withdrawal of guilty pleas
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51 (1991) - Effective assistance of counsel
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 4.2(B) (2015) - Hearing on motion to withdraw plea
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 4.2(D) (2015) - Appeals from orders denying relief

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:

• Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, 11 11-13, 362 P.3d 650, 653-54
• Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 1 8, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118
• Banks v. State, 1991 OK 2 C-2016-38, Roberts v. State CR 51, 1 34, 810 P.2d 1286, 1296