Robert Warren Betts, IV v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2000-1344
Filed: Mar. 14, 2001
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Robert Warren Betts, IV appealed his conviction for several offenses, including Driving Under the Influence and Assault on a Police Officer. His conviction and sentence included imprisonment terms totaling over ten years for various charges. Judge Chapel's opinion granted some of Betts's claims for appeal, stating that there was not enough proof to support some of the charges against him. The court decided that it was unfair for Betts to plead guilty to those charges without a clear understanding of what he was admitting. Some of his other arguments were not accepted. The court reversed certain charges and required a new hearing to sort out a restitution issue concerning the fines he had to pay. Betts's conviction for Assault on a Police Officer was upheld. Judge Lile dissented on some points.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence in Case No. CF-99-233 is AFFIRMED. The District Court's decisions in Case Nos. CF-99-170, CM-99-549, and CM-99-777 are REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this Opinion.
Issues
- Was there an inadequate factual basis for Betts's guilty plea such that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion to withdraw the plea?
- Did the trial court err by denying Betts's application to withdraw his pleas based on a lack of correct advising regarding the ranges of punishment?
- Was there reversible error due to the trial court's failure to fill out form 13.10 as required for the misdemeanor charge of unlawful possession of a controlled substance?
- Did the trial court commit reversible error by accepting Betts's plea without informing him of the elements of each offense charged?
- Did the trial court err by failing to determine restitution with reasonable certainty?
Findings
- The court erred in refusing to grant Betts's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty due to the lack of an adequate factual basis.
- The trial court accurately informed Betts of the range of punishment on the charges in Case No. CF-99-233, rendering the remainder of Proposition II moot.
- Proposition III is moot as a result of the reversal under Proposition I.
- No merit exists in Proposition IV, as the trial court is not required to inform a defendant of the elements of each charge before accepting a plea.
- The trial court failed to determine restitution within a reasonable certainty, warranting a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
C-2000-1344
Mar. 14, 2001
Robert Warren Betts, IV
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
GRANTING CERTIORARI
CHAPEL, JUDGE: On January 24, 2000, in the District Court of Caddo County, Betts pleaded guilty in Case No. CF-99-170 to Driving Under the Influence of Drugs in violation of 47 O.S.Supp.1998, § 11-902, after one former DUI conviction; in Case No. CF-99-233, to Assault and Battery upon a Police Officer in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 649(B) (Count I), and Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor in violation of 47 O.S.Supp.1998, § 11-902 (Count II), after one former DUI conviction; in Case No. CM-99-549 to Driving Under Suspension in violation of 47 O.S.Supp.1998, § 6-303 (Count I), and Transportation of Beer in an Open Container in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 1220 (Count II); and in Case No. CM-99-777 to Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug (Lorazepam) in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.1998, § 2-402(B)(2) (Count I), Driving Under Suspension in violation of 47 O.S.Supp. 1998, § 6-303 (Count II), Public Drunk in violation of 73 O.S.1991, § 8 (Count III), and Tampering with a Vehicle in violation of 47 O.S.1991, § 4-104(a) (Count IV).
On March 16, 2000, the Honorable David E. Powell sentenced Betts as follows: Case No. CF-99-170 – ten (10) years imprisonment, concurrent to Case No. CF-99-233; Case No. CF-99-233 – ten (10) years imprisonment on Count I and seven (7) years imprisonment on Count II to be served consecutively; Case No. CM-99-549 – one (1) year imprisonment and $50 fine, concurrent to all other sentences; Case No. CM-99-777 – one (1) year imprisonment on each of Counts I & II, thirty (30) days imprisonment on Count III, and sixty (60) days imprisonment on Count IV, concurrent to all other sentences.
Betts filed a motion to withdraw his plea on April 20, 2000. The district court overruled his motion after an April 21, 2000 hearing, and Betts filed a petition for certiorari on October 25, 2000. This Court ordered a Response to Propositions I, III and V, which was filed March 14, 2001. Betts raises five propositions of error in support of his petition:
I. The trial court erred in refusing to grant Betts’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty because an inadequate factual basis existed;
II. The trial court erred in denying Betts’s application to withdraw his pleas when it became apparent that Betts was not correctly advised of the ranges of punishment;
III. Reversible error occurred when the trial court did not fill out form 13.10 as is required by case law and Rule 4.1 to the misdemeanor charge of unlawful possession of a controlled substance;
IV. Reversible error occurred when the trial court accepted Betts’s plea without informing him of the elements of each offense charged; and
V. The trial court erred by failing to determine restitution within a reasonable certainty.
After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, briefs and exhibits of the parties, we find Proposition I requires relief as to Case Nos. CF-99-170, CM-99-549, and CM-99-777. The only factual basis in the record is Betts’s statement admitting he drove while drinking twice and hit a police officer. The statement says nothing about driving under the influence of drugs, possession of Lorazepam, transporting beer in an open container, or tampering with a vehicle, nor does it address the question of a suspended driver’s license. As there is no factual basis to support these charges, the Court cannot find Betts entered his plea to those counts voluntarily and intelligently. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED as to these convictions.
We find in Proposition II that Betts was accurately informed of the range of punishment on the charges in Case No. CF-99-233. Given our conclusion in Proposition I, the remainder of Betts’s claims in Proposition II are moot. We find Proposition III is moot, as CM-99-777 must be reversed under Proposition I. We find no merit in Proposition IV, as the trial court is not required to inform a defendant of the elements of each charge before accepting a plea. We find in Proposition V that the trial court failed to ascertain the amount of restitution to a reasonable certainty. We also note the record does not indicate in which case restitution was imposed. It appears restitution could have been imposed in either CF-99-233 or CM-99-777. If restitution was imposed in the latter case, it must be vacated, as that conviction must be reversed under Proposition I. We therefore REMAND this case on the restitution issue for an evidentiary hearing to determine, first, in which case restitution was ordered. If restitution was ordered in CM-99-777, CF-99-170, or CM-99-549, the trial court is directed to vacate that order. If the trial court determines restitution was ordered in CF-99-233, the trial court must ascertain the amount of restitution within a reasonable certainty. We direct the district court to conduct a hearing, provide transcripts, and issue an order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law within forty-five (45) days from the date of this order.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence in Case No. CF-99-233 is AFFIRMED. The District Court’s decisions in Case Nos. CF-99-170, CM-99-549, and CM-99-777 are REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this Opinion.
Footnotes:
- Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, 990 P.2d 894, 896.
- 22 O.S.Supp.1997, § 991a(A)(1)(a); Honeycutt U. State, 1992 OK CR 36, 834 P.2d 993, 1000-01.
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-902 (1998) - Driving Under the Influence of Drugs
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 649(B) (1991) - Assault and Battery upon a Police Officer
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-303 (1998) - Driving Under Suspension
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1220 (1991) - Transportation of Beer in an Open Container
- Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402(B)(2) (1998) - Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug
- Okla. Stat. tit. 73 § 8 (1991) - Public Drunk
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-303 (1998) - Driving Under Suspension
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 4-104(a) (1991) - Tampering with a Vehicle
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991a(A)(1)(a) (1997) - Sentencing and Restitution Procedures
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:
- Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, 990 P.2d 894, 896.
- Honeycutt v. State, 1992 OK CR 36, 834 P.2d 993, 1000-01.