Steven Caleb Copeland v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2002-1136

Filed: Jul. 22, 2003

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Steven Caleb Copeland appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle and eluding a police officer. Conviction and sentence of three years and two years imprisonment, with fines and restitution totaling $104,000. Judge Lile dissented.

Decision

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED IN PART. The trial court's order regarding restitution is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for a restitution hearing. In all other respects, the Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED.

Issues

• was there an abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Petitioner's application to withdraw his pleas?
• did the trial court properly consider the loss of personal property in assessing restitution?
• was there sufficient information in the record regarding the estimated economic loss of $104,000 to determine if it was reasonable?
• was a restitution hearing appropriate under the circumstances?

Findings

• The court did not err in finding Petitioner's pleas to be valid.
• The court erred in denying a restitution hearing due to insufficient information regarding the amount of restitution.
• The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted in part, with the trial court's order regarding restitution vacated.
• The case is remanded for a restitution hearing.
• The Judgment and Sentence is affirmed in all other respects.

C-2002-1136

Jul. 22, 2003

Steven Caleb Copeland

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

GRANTING CERTIORARI IN PART AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

JOHNSON, PRESIDING JUDGE: On June 20, 2002, Petitioner entered pleas of guilty to Count 1: Possession of a Stolen Vehicle (47 O.S.2001, § 4-103) and Count 2: Eluding a Police Officer (21 O.S.2001, § 540(A)) before the Honorable Jefferson D. Sellers, District Judge, in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2002-2168. At a hearing held July 31, 2002, the district court imposed a judgment of guilt and sentenced Petitioner as follows: Count 1, three years imprisonment, $500 fine, and $250 Victim’s Compensation Assessment; Count 2, two years imprisonment, $500 fine, and $250 Victim’s Compensation Assessment. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and gave Petitioner credit for time served. The court also ordered restitution of $104,000 related to Count 1.

On August 12, 2002, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. At a hearing held August 28, 2002, the district court denied the motion. Petitioner timely lodged this certiorari appeal. At this Court’s request, the State filed a brief in response to Petitioner’s brief on June 4, 2003.

On appeal, Petitioner raises the following proposition of error: The district court abused its discretion by denying Petitioner’s application to withdraw his pleas.

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 find Petitioner’s pleas to be valid, but remand for further proceedings on the issue of restitution. In reaching this conclusion, we find as follows:

(1) Petitioner was aware, when he entered his negotiated pleas, that he would be liable for restitution reasonably related to his criminal conduct, and that whether any part of his negotiated sentence would be suspended was left to the district court’s sole discretion after considering the Presentence Report.

(2) Petitioner’s own statements support the trial court’s conclusion that he was involved not just in possessing a vehicle he knew to be stolen, but in first helping to remove other personal property from the vehicle, with the understanding that he would receive some of this property as compensation for disposing of the vehicle; thus, the trial court could properly consider the loss of this other personal property in assessing restitution. Berget v. State, 1991 OK CR 121, I 16, 824 P.2d 364, 370; 22 O.S.2001, § 991f(A)(1), (3).

(3) While the owner of the vehicle estimated his economic loss at $104,000, the record does not contain sufficient information as to how that amount was arrived at, and consequently, whether it was reasonable. We conclude that a restitution hearing is appropriate under the circumstances. Taylor v. State, 2002 OK CR 13, 11 5-6, 45 P.3d 103, 105-06; Honeycutt v. State, 1992 OK CR 36, 11 33-40, 834 P.2d 993, 1000-01; 22 O.S.2001, §§ 991a(A)(1)(a), 991f.

DECISION

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED IN PART. The trial court’s order regarding restitution is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for a restitution hearing. In all other respects, the Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED.

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

JULIA ALLEN
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
423 S. BOULDER, SUITE 300
TULSA, OK 74103
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

SEAN BAKER
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
500 S. DENVER, SUITE 406
TULSA, OK 74103

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

PAULA J. ALFRED
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
423 S. BOULDER, SUITE 300
TULSA, OK 74103
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

W. A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
JENNIFER J. DICKSON
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
112 STATE CAPITOL
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY JOHNSON, P.J.

LILE, V.P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR
CHAPEL, J.: CONCUR
STRUBHAR, J.: CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 4-103
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540(A)
3. Berget v. State, 1991 OK CR 121, ¶ 16, 824 P.2d 364, 370; 22 O.S.2001 § 991f(A)(1), (3)
4. Taylor v. State, 2002 OK CR 13, ¶¶ 5-6, 45 P.3d 103, 105-06; Honeycutt v. State, 1992 OK CR 36, ¶¶ 33-40, 834 P.2d 993, 1000-01; 22 O.S.2001 §§ 991a(A)(1)(a), 991f

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 4-103 (2001) - Possession of a Stolen Vehicle
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540 (2001) - Eluding a Police Officer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991f (2001) - Restitution
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991a (2001) - Restitution

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:

• Berget v. State, 1991 OK CR 121, I 16, 824 P.2d 364, 370
• Taylor v. State, 2002 OK CR 13, I 5-6, 45 P.3d 103, 105-06
• Honeycutt v. State, 1992 OK CR 36, I 33-40, 834 P.2d 993, 1000-01