Jimmy Wayne Holstine v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2012-699
Filed: Aug. 21, 2013
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Jimmy Wayne Holstine
Summary
Jimmy Wayne Holstine appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. Conviction and sentence were for ten years in prison after he initially had his sentencing deferred for five years. Holstine's request for a hearing to withdraw his no contest plea was denied, which led him to appeal. The court found that he did not receive proper legal help during this hearing, which affected his rights. Because of this, they decided to send the case back to the district court for a new hearing about his plea withdrawal. Judge Lumpkin disagreed with the result.
Decision
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED, and the cause REMANDED to the district court for a proper hearing on the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there an adequate basis for Holstine's plea being considered knowingly and intelligently entered?
- Did Holstine receive ineffective assistance of counsel during his district court proceedings?
- Was Holstine constructively denied counsel during the hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea?
- Was the sentence imposed after Holstine's plea excessive and warranted modification?
Findings
- the court erred in denying Holstine's motion to withdraw his plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel
- the request for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea is granted
C-2012-699
Aug. 21, 2013
Jimmy Wayne Holstine
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
Petitioner, Jimmy Wayne Holstine, was charged in Atoka County District Court with Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Case No. CF-2012-12. Holstine entered a plea of no contest to the charge on February 8, 2012, and sentencing was deferred for five years. On April 17, 2012, the State filed an Application to Accelerate Deferred Judgment. An Amended Application to Accelerate Deferred Judgment was filed on May 24, 2012. Holstine’s sentence was accelerated to ten years imprisonment on June 12, 2012. Holstine subsequently filed a Motion to Withdraw his no contest plea. At the conclusion of a hearing on this motion, his request was denied. It is from this ruling that Holstine appeals to this Court.
Holstine raises the following propositions of error:
1. Mr. Holstine 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.
2. Mr. Holstine received ineffective assistance of counsel during his district court proceedings.
3. A new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea is required because defense counsel at this critical stage of the proceeding utterly abandoned her client’s cause, forcing Mr. Holstine to proceed without the benefit of counsel.
4. The sentence imposed after Mr. Holstine entered a plea of no contest is excessive and must be modified.
After thorough consideration of the propositions, and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and the briefs of the parties, we remand this case to the district court for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw.
In Proposition III, Holstine alleges that although his attorney was present at the hearing on the motion to withdraw, her representation of him at this hearing was so inadequate that he was effectively denied his constitutional right to be represented by counsel at this critical stage of the criminal prosecution. The transcript of the hearing on the motion to withdraw contains two and a half pages of text. It reflects that defense counsel did nothing more than remind the court that she had tried to withdraw from the case earlier and then advise the court that the defense was standing on its motion. When Holstine tried to explain his position, the judge admonished him not to speak and did not allow him to speak further. The hearing was then concluded without any argument or presentation of witnesses from the defense.
While defense counsel may have stated Holstine’s position at the hearing on the motion to withdraw by standing on the motion, she certainly did not advocate the same. Although Holstine was not wholly without counsel, he was, arguably, constructively denied counsel as he was effectively without the assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw.
We find that this error may be adequately remedied by remanding the case to the district court for a proper hearing on Holstine’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.
DECISION
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED, and the cause REMANDED to the district court for a proper hearing on the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Footnotes:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1080
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)
- Young v. State, 1994 OK CR 84, 902 P.2d 1089
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2013)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
No Oklahoma statutes found.
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:
- Young v. State, 1994 OK CR 84, I 9, 902 P.2d 1089, 1090-91
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2047, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)