Russell Snoe v State Of Oklahoma

C-2002-633

Filed: Feb. 26, 2003

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Russell Snoe appealed his conviction for Lewd and Indecent Proposal to a Child and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. Conviction and sentence were reversed. Johnson, P.J. and Lile, V.P.J., concurred.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is REVERSED and the petition for a writ of certiorari is GRANTED.

Issues

• Was there ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest?
• Was Mr. Snoe's plea knowingly and voluntarily made, considering he was not advised of the correct range of punishment?

Findings

• the court erred
• the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made
• relief is required

C-2002-633

Feb. 26, 2003

Russell Snoe

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

STRUBHAR, JUDGE: Russell Snoe, hereinafter Petitioner, entered a guilty plea in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2001-711, to Count I – Lewd and Indecent Proposal to a Child and Count II – Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor.¹ Associate District Judge Thomas H. Alford accepted the plea and followed the State’s sentencing recommendation. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to five years imprisonment on Count I and one year imprisonment on Count II, provided the sentences would be suspended following successful completion of the RID program. The trial court also ordered the sentences to run concurrently and concurrently with the sentences in CF-2001-714 and CF-99-97. Petitioner, in a pro se letter to the court, asked to withdraw his plea¹ which the court treated as a formal request. Following the prescribed hearing, the district court denied Petitioner’s application. From the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw plea, Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of Petitioner and Respondent, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. In reaching our decision we considered the following propositions of error:
I. A new hearing on the motion to withdraw plea is required because Mr. Snoe received ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest; and
II. Mr. Snoe’s plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because Petitioner was not advised of the correct range of punishment. We find merit in Proposition II. The record shows Petitioner entered his plea, in part, to escape having his sentence enhanced when in fact it could not be because deferred sentences cannot be used to enhance punishment. Petitioner entered his plea based on incorrect information about the range of punishment he faced, thereby rendering the plea unknowing and involuntary. See Hunter v. State, 825 P.2d 1353, 1355 (Okl.Cr.1992). Accordingly, relief is required.²

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is REVERSED and the petition for a writ of certiorari is GRANTED.

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
ROGER HILFIGER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 791
MUSKOGEE, OK 74401
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
BILLY J. BAZE
OKLAHOMA INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

SEJIN BROOKS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MUSKOGEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
MUSKOGEE, OK 74401
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE

W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM R. HOLMES
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
2300 N. LINCOLN BLVD., STE. 112
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

OPINION BY: STRUBHAR, J.
JOHNSON, P.J.: CONCUR
LILE, V.P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULT
CHAPEL, J.: CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1051
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1062
3. Hunter v. State, 825 P.2d 1353, 1355 (Okl.Cr.1992)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123 - Lewd and Indecent Proposal to a Child
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 858 - Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Sentencing on a Conviction
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1051 - Pleas
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 982 - Sentencing Enhancements

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:

• Hunter v. State, 825 P.2d 1353, 1355 (Okl.Cr.1992)