Byron Lynn White v Byron Lynn White
C-2001-1425
Filed: May 30, 2002
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Byron Lynn White
Summary
Byron Lynn White appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. Conviction and sentence were for life imprisonment. No judge dissented in the opinion. In this case, White entered a guilty plea for murder in 2000 but did not file an appeal right away. Later, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his attorney did not help him properly. The court held a hearing about this, but White was not there, and his lawyer didn’t make any arguments to support him. As a result, the court denied his request to withdraw the plea. White appealed this decision, saying he had a right to be present during the hearing and that he did not receive good legal help. The court agreed, stating he should have been there and that his attorney should have argued for him. They decided to send the case back to the lower court for a proper hearing where White would be present and have a lawyer to help him.
Decision
Petitioner was neither present nor was he effectively represented by counsel at this hearing. We remand this case to the District Court of Mayes County for a proper hearing on Petitioner's application to withdraw his guilty plea. We also direct that Petitioner be present at this hearing and that he be appointed counsel to represent him. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Issues
- Was there a denial of Petitioner’s constitutional right to due process due to the hearing on the motion to withdraw being conducted in his absence?
- Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel as his attorney did not advocate for his position at the withdrawal hearing?
- Was the absence of Petitioner from the hearing without a waiver of his right to be present a violation of his rights?
- Should the District Court of Mayes County conduct a proper hearing on Petitioner’s application to withdraw his guilty plea?
Findings
- the court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea
- the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to due process
- the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel
- the case is remanded for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea
- the petitioner must be present at the hearing
- the petitioner must be appointed counsel to represent him at the hearing
C-2001-1425
May 30, 2002
Byron Lynn White
Appellantv
Byron Lynn White
Appellee
v
Byron Lynn White
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
ORDER REMANDING FOR A PROPER HEARING ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA
On February 3, 2000, Petitioner, Byron Lynn White, entered a guilty plea in the District Court of Mayes County, to the crime of First Degree Murder, in Case No. CF-99-105. The plea was accepted by the Honorable James D. Goodpaster. On April 4, 2000, the district court sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment. A timely appeal was not perfected. On May 29, 2001, Petitioner filed a pro se application for an appeal out of time in the district court. On July 11, 2001, the district court entered an order finding that Petitioner should be granted an appeal out of time. This Court issued an order on October 9, 2001, granting Petitioner an appeal out of time and directing trial counsel to represent Petitioner in all district court proceedings related to the application to withdraw.
Less than a week later, Petitioner filed a pro se application to withdraw his guilty plea in the District Court of Mayes County. Therein, he listed several grounds supporting his application, including two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On October 25, 2001, Petitioner’s counsel of record, pursuant to this Court’s directive, filed in the district court a motion to set aside Petitioner’s guilty plea. He listed no grounds supporting his request. On November 20, 2001, a hearing was held before the Honorable James D. Goodpaster on Petitioner’s motion to withdraw. For reasons not apparent from the record, Petitioner was not present at this hearing. His attorney of record appeared and made no argument in support of Petitioner’s application. Although the entire text of the record of this hearing is less than two pages in length, it is clear that Petitioner’s attorney had not even read the pro se application filed by Petitioner. The district court denied the motion to set aside the guilty plea.
Petitioner, through appointed counsel, has filed with this Court an appeal from the district court’s denial of his application to withdraw. Petitioner asserts that he was denied his constitutional right to due process because the hearing on the motion to withdraw was conducted in his absence without a waiver of his right to be present at this critical stage. He also complains that he was denied effective assistance of counsel as his attorney of record did absolutely nothing to advocate his position.
Petitioner is right. A hearing on a motion to withdraw is a critical stage at which a defendant has both the right to be present and the right to effective assistance counsel. Randall v. State, 861 P.2d 314, 316 (Okl.Cr.1993). Petitioner was neither present nor was he effectively represented by counsel at this hearing. We remand this case to the District Court of Mayes County for a proper hearing on Petitioner’s application to withdraw his guilty plea. We also direct that Petitioner be present at this hearing and that he be appointed counsel to represent him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 30th day of May, 2002.
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge
CHAN S. CHEPUL, Judge
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge
STEVE LILE, Judge
ATTEST: Kimmer Clerk Patternoon 3
Footnotes:
- 1. Randall v. State, 861 P.2d 314, 316 (Okl.Cr.1993).
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:
- Randall v. State, 861 P.2d 314, 316 (Okl.Cr.1993)