Crystal Dawn Campbell v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2002-1525

Filed: Sep. 3, 2003

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Crystal Dawn Campbell appealed her conviction for Enabling Child Abuse. Her conviction and sentence were originally twenty-five (25) years in prison. The court decided that while Campbell could not withdraw her guilty plea, her sentence should be modified to ten (10) years instead. Judge Lumpkin disagreed with this decision, believing the original sentence was appropriate, and Judge Lile also felt the same way about not changing the sentence.

Decision

Campbell's CONVICTION for Enabling Child Abuse is AFFIRMED, but her SENTENCE is MODIFIED to imprisonment for ten (10) years.

Issues

• Was there sufficient factual basis for the acceptance of Campbell's Alford plea?
• Did the trial court properly inform Campbell of the rights she was waiving and the maximum penalty for her conviction?
• Should Campbell be allowed to withdraw her guilty plea and proceed to trial?
• Was it appropriate for the court to modify Campbell's sentence from twenty-five years to ten years?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing Campbell?

Findings

• The court erred in allowing Campbell to withdraw her plea.
• Evidence was sufficient to support the acceptance of Campbell's Alford plea.
• Campbell's sentence was modified to imprisonment for ten (10) years.
• Conviction for Enabling Child Abuse was affirmed.

C-2002-1525

Sep. 3, 2003

Crystal Dawn Campbell

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE:

Crystal Dawn Campbell was charged by information in Hughes County, Case No. CF-2001-108, with Enabling Child Abuse, under 10 O.S.2001, § 7115. On May 14, 2002, Campbell entered a blind Alford plea of guilty in the case, before the Honorable Gregg M. Smith. After a sentencing hearing, the Honorable Gregg M. Smith sentenced Campbell to imprisonment for twenty-five (25) years. She is now properly before this Court on a petition for certiorari, seeking to withdraw her guilty plea or have her sentence modified.

Campbell raises the following proposition of error: Based upon all the facts and circumstances of Petitioner’s case, this Court should allow Ms. Campbell to withdraw her Alford plea of guilty and proceed to trial or, in the alternative, modify the sentence. Although Campbell seeks to withdraw her plea, she does not allege any particular errors in the way her plea was entered, and the record establishes that she was properly informed regarding the rights she was waiving and the maximum penalty for her conviction. Although Campbell’s plea form alone does not contain an adequate factual basis to support her plea, this is to be expected with an Alford plea.¹ Campbell does not deny that the total evidence before the trial court provided an adequate factual basis for its acceptance of her plea.² Hence Campbell will not be allowed to withdraw her plea. Nevertheless, this Court finds that based upon the specific factual circumstances of this case, Campbell’s sentence should be modified to imprisonment for ten (10) years.³

After thoroughly considering the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, briefs, and exhibits of the parties, we find that although reversal of Campbell’s conviction is not required by the law and evidence, her sentence should be modified.

Decision

Campbell’s CONVICTION for Enabling Child Abuse is AFFIRMED, but her SENTENCE is MODIFIED to imprisonment for ten (10) years.

¹ An Alford plea, by definition, is one in which the defendant continues to profess innocence. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (holding that where State presented strong factual evidence of guilt, defendant’s guilty plea was not invalidated by fact that he continued to profess innocence at time of plea); see also Stewart v. State, 1977 OK CR 265, 568 P.2d 1297, 1300 (noting that a desire to lessen the punishment is a constitutionally valid reason for entering a plea of guilty) (citing Alford).

² Campbell acknowledges in her brief that the factual basis for a plea can be found in sources other than the defendant’s own admissions, including within a preliminary hearing transcript. See Wester v. State, 1988 OK CR 126, 764 P.2d 884, 885 (cited in Campbell’s brief).

³ See 21 O.S.2001, § 3001.1; 22 O.S.2001, § 1066; Stewart, 568 P.2d at 1300 (modifying defendant’s sentence from 10 years to 5 years based upon the interest of justice).

**OPINION BY:** CHAPEL, J.

**JOHNSON, P.J.:** CONCUR

**LILE, V.P.J.:** CONCUR IN PART/DISSENT IN PART

**LUMPKIN, J.:** CONCUR IN PART/DISSENT IN PART

**STRUBHAR, J.:** CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. An Alford plea, by definition, is one in which the defendant continues to profess innocence. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (holding that where State presented strong factual evidence of guilt, defendant's guilty plea was not invalidated by fact that he continued to profess innocence at time of plea); see also Stewart v. State, 1977 OK CR 265, 568 P.2d 1297, 1300 (noting that "a desire to lessen the punishment is a constitutionally valid reason for entering a plea of guilty") (citing Alford).
2. Campbell acknowledges in her brief that the factual basis for a plea can be found in sources other than the defendant's own admissions, including within a preliminary hearing transcript. See Wester v. State, 1988 OK CR 126, 764 P.2d 884, 885 (cited in Campbell's brief).
3. See 21 O.S.2001, § 3001.1; 22 O.S.2001, § 1066; Stewart, 568 P.2d at 1300 (modifying defendant's sentence from 10 years to 5 years based upon "the interest of justice").

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10 § 7115 - Enabling Child Abuse
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 3001.1 - Modification of Sentence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1066 - Grounds for Modification of Sentence

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:

• North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)
• Stewart v. State, 1977 OK CR 265, 568 P.2d 1297, 1300
• Wester v. State, 1988 OK CR 126, 764 P.2d 884, 885
• Rea v. State, 34 P.3d 148 (Okl.Cr. 2001)