John Douglas Clark v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2002-1191

Filed: Jul. 10, 2003

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

John Douglas Clark appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including possession of drugs and firearms, and shooting with intent to kill. His total sentence was 223 years, with all sentences running one after the other. The court decided that while some of his guilty pleas were acceptable, one charge about maintaining a vehicle for selling drugs was not proven, so that specific conviction was dismissed. The court affirmed his other convictions and stated they should continue to run consecutively. Judge Chapel disagreed and suggested that the sentences should run at the same time instead.

Decision

The judgments and sentences are hereby AFFIRMED, except that Petitioner's conviction in Case NO. CF-2000-41 for Maintaining a Vehicle Used for the Keeping or Selling of CDS (Count II) is hereby REVERSED and DISMISSED. All sentences are to be served consecutively. This matter is therefore REMANDED for further proceedings consistently herewith.

Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to support the guilty plea on Counts I and II in Case CF-2000-41 and Counts I and II in Case CF-2001-594?
• Did the multiple punishments imposed require the dismissal of Counts I and II in CF-2000-41 and Counts II and III in CF-2001-594?
• Were Petitioner's guilty pleas made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily?

Findings

• The court erred in upholding the conviction for Maintaining a Vehicle Used for the Keeping or Selling of CDS (Count II) in Case NO. CF-2000-41, and this conviction is hereby reversed and dismissed.
• The claim relating to CF-2000-41 is moot regarding multiple punishments.
• Petitioner was not subjected to double jeopardy or double punishment in CF-2001-594.
• Petitioner's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.

C-2002-1191

Jul. 10, 2003

John Douglas Clark

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

GRANTING CERTIORARI IN PART AND MODIFYING SENTENCE

LUMPKIN, J.: Petitioner pled guilty and was convicted in Garfield County District Court of the following crimes, in three separate cases, all after former conviction of two or more felonies: [Case No. CF-2000-41] Possession of CDS with Intent to Distribute (Count I), Maintaining a Vehicle Used for the Keeping or Selling of CDS (Count II), Driving Under Suspension (Count III), and Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia (Count IV); [Case No. CF-2000-53] Possession of CDS within 1,000 Feet of a Public Park (Count I), Possession of Firearm During Commission of a Felony (Count II), Possession of Firearm After Felony Conviction (Count III), and Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia (Count IV); and [Case No. CF-2001-594] Two counts of Shooting with Intent to Kill (Counts I and II), Possession of Firearms After Conviction or During Probation (Count III), Unlawful Use of Police Radio (Count IV), Possession of CDS (Count V), and Possession of Sawed-Off Shotgun/Rifle (Count VI).

Prior to sentencing, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. Following a September 13, 2002 hearing on that motion, the trial court denied the same. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Petitioner as follows: twenty (20) years; twenty (20) years; one year; one year; twenty (20) years; twenty (20) years; twenty (20) years; one (1) year; thirty (30) years; thirty (30) years; thirty (30) years; ten (10) years; ten (10) years; and ten (10) years. The sentences, totaling 223 years, were ordered to run consecutively.

Petitioner now appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw plea. Petitioner raises the following propositions of error in this appeal:

I. The trial court erred by accepting his guilty plea on Counts I and II in Case CF-2000-41, and Counts I and II in Case CF-2001-594, because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge;

II. Petitioner has endured multiple punishments requiring the dismissal of Counts I and II in CF-2000-41 and Counts II and III in CF-2001-594; and

III. Petitioner’s guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered into and require a withdrawal.

After thoroughly considering these propositions and the entire record before us, we grant relief, as set forth below.

With respect to proposition one, we find there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to accept a plea of guilty on Count I of CF-2000-41 and Counts I and II of CF-2001-594. Spuehler v. State, 1985 CR 132, 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04. However, we find the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Count II in CF-2000-41, i.e., Maintaining a Vehicle Used for the Keeping or Selling of CDS. See 63 O.S.Supp.1999, § 2-404(A)(6); Howard v. State, 1991 OK CR 76, 815 P.2d 679, 683 (requiring certain evidence as essential elements for a conviction for maintaining).

With respect to proposition two, we find the claim relating to CF-2000-41 is moot, as per proposition one. As to CF-2001-594, we find Petitioner was not subjected to double jeopardy or double punishment. Davis v. State, 1999 OK CR 48, 13, 993 P.2d 124, 126.

With respect to the third proposition, we find Petitioner’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. King v. State, 1976 OK CR 103, 11, 553 P.2d 529, 534-5.

DECISION

The judgments and sentences are hereby AFFIRMED, except that Petitioner’s conviction in Case No. CF-2000-41 for Maintaining a Vehicle Used for the Keeping or Selling of CDS (Count II) is hereby REVERSED and DISMISSED. All sentences are to be served consecutively. This matter is therefore REMANDED for further proceedings consistently herewith.

OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J. JOHNSON, P.J.: CONCUR LILE, V.P.J.: CONCUR CHAPEL, J.: CONCUR IN PART/DISSENT IN PART STRUBHAR, J.: RECUSE

CHAPEL, JUDGE, CONCURS IN PART/DISSENTS IN PART: I would modify the sentences to run concurrently.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.1999, § 2-404(A)(6)
2. Howard v. State, 1991 OK CR 76, 815 P.2d 679, 683
3. Davis v. State, 1999 OK CR 48, 993 P.2d 124, 126
4. King v. State, 1976 OK CR 103, 553 P.2d 529, 534-5
5. Spuehler v. State, 1985 CR 132, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-404(A)(6) - Maintaining a Vehicle Used for the Keeping or Selling of CDS
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Possession of Firearm During Commission of a Felony
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283 - Possession of Firearm After Felony Conviction
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652 - Shooting with Intent to Kill
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1289.26 - Possession of Firearms After Conviction or During Probation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1272 - Unlawful Use of Police Radio
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-101 - Possession of CDS

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:

• Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04
• Howard v. State, 1991 OK CR 76, 815 P.2d 679, 683
• Davis v. State, 1999 OK CR 48, I 13, 993 P.2d 124, 126
• King v. State, 1976 OK CR 103, q11, 553 P.2d 529, 534-5