Ronyell Lamar Shelton v State Of Oklahoma

C-2003-1382

Filed: Dec. 3, 2004

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Ronyell Lamar Shelton appealed his conviction for robbery and other crimes. His conviction and sentence totaled thirty years for robbery counts and ten years for other counts, with some sentences running at the same time. Judge Strubhar affirmed some convictions but reversed one for concealing stolen property and allowed Shelton to withdraw his guilty plea on another count. Judge Lumpkin dissented regarding the reversal of the conviction for concealing stolen property.

Decision

The decision of the trial court denying Petitioner's request to withdraw his pleas to Counts I, II, III and VI is AFFIRMED. As to these counts the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The denial of Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw his plea in Count V is REVERSED and as to this count the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. Petitioner's conviction on Count IV is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS.

Issues

• Was there a violation of double jeopardy principles regarding the convictions for concealing stolen property?
• Did the evidence provide a sufficient basis for the charges of knowingly concealing stolen property?
• Was the Petitioner misinformed about the sentences on the charges of knowingly concealing stolen property?
• Did the trial judge properly review the case on the motion to withdraw the plea?
• Was the Petitioner deprived of effective assistance of counsel?
• Were the sentences imposed on the Petitioner excessive?

Findings

• the court erred
• evidence was not sufficient
• the court erred
• the court did not err
• relief is not required
• the sentences were not excessive
• no error justifying modification or reversal
• the court's ruling on Counts I, II, III and VI is affirmed
• the denial of Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw his plea in Count V is reversed
• Petitioner's conviction on Count IV is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss

C-2003-1382

Dec. 3, 2004

Ronyell Lamar Shelton

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Petitioner, Ronyell Lamar Shelton, entered a guilty plea in the District County of Cleveland County, Case No. CF-2002-1755, to Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Count I), Robbery with a Firearm (Counts II and III) and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property (Counts IV and V), each after former conviction of a felony. He was also convicted of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (Count VI). Petitioner’s plea was accepted by the Honorable Tom A. Lucas. Petitioner was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment on each of Counts I – III, and ten years imprisonment on each of Counts IV – VI. The trial court ordered Petitioner’s sentences on Counts II – VI to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to Count I. Petitioner filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea. This motion was denied and Petitioner appeals this ruling.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we affirm the district court’s ruling regarding Counts I, II, III and VI. We reverse Count IV with instructions to dismiss and we allow Petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea to Count V. In reaching our decision, we considered the following propositions of error and determined this result to be required under the law and the evidence:

I. The trial court erred by entering judgments and sentences which violate the principles of double jeopardy.

II. The evidence was insufficient to support the charges of knowingly concealing stolen property; accordingly, there existed no factual basis for the blind plea to these charges.

III. The guilty plea form reflects that Petitioner was misinformed about the sentences on the charges of knowingly concealing stolen property.

IV. The trial judge failed to properly review the case on the motion to withdraw the plea.

V. Petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel.

VI. The sentences were excessive.

DECISION

As to Petitioner’s first proposition, we find that the two robberies, while occurring in close proximity to one another, were separate offenses and do not violate either the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy or the statutory prohibition against double punishment. See Davis v. State, 916 P.2d 251, 261 (Okl.Cr.1996); Hale v. State, 888 P.2d 1027, 1028 (Okl.Cr.1995).

On the record before this Court, however, we find that his two convictions for concealing stolen property are violative of the prohibition against double jeopardy. See Antrobus v. State, 900 P.2d 1003, 1004-05 (Okl.Cr.1995). Accordingly, his conviction on Count IV is reversed with instructions to dismiss.

With regard to Proposition II, we find that Petitioner has not provided an adequate record upon which this Court can review his claims. See Hill v. State, 898 P.2d 155, 160 (Okl.Cr.1995). Petitioner’s third proposition requires that Petitioner be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to concealing stolen property in Count V as he was misinformed to his detriment about the range of punishment for this crime. See 21 O.S.2001, § 421; 21 O.S.2001, § 51.1(2). Petitioner was properly advised of the range of punishment for the crime of conspiracy in Count I.

Petitioner’s argument in Proposition IV warrants no relief as the record reflects that the judge ruled upon the arguments raised in the motion. Although counsel could have done more in her representation of Petitioner, prejudice caused to Petitioner by counsel’s failure to realize the double jeopardy argument as well as the failure to advise him of the proper sentencing ranges has been remedied by this Court’s decision to dismiss Count IV and to allow Petitioner to withdraw his plea to Count V. His argument regarding counsel’s other alleged deficiencies does not support the conclusion that he suffered any resulting prejudice. Accordingly, relief is not required on error alleged in Proposition V. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

We find in Proposition VI that Petitioner’s sentence was not excessive. See Rea v. State, 34 P.3d 148, 149 (Okl.Cr.2001).

Finally, in Proposition VII we find that the record in this case reveals no error which, singly or in combination, would justify either modification or reversal. Any irregularities or errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Black v. State, 21 P.3d 1047, 1078 (Okl.Cr.2001).

The decision of the trial court denying Petitioner’s request to withdraw his pleas to Counts I, II, III and VI is AFFIRMED. As to these counts the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw his plea in Count V is REVERSED and as to this count the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. Petitioner’s conviction on Count IV is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. See Davis v. State, 916 P.2d 251, 261 (Okl.Cr.1996); Hale v. State, 888 P.2d 1027, 1028 (Okl.Cr.1995)
2. See Antrobus v. State, 900 P.2d 1003, 1004-05 (Okl.Cr.1995)
3. See Hill v. State, 898 P.2d 155, 160 (Okl.Cr.1995)
4. See 21 O.S.2001, § 421; 21 O.S.2001, § 51.1(2)
5. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
6. See Rea v. State, 34 P.3d 148, 149 (Okl.Cr.2001)
7. Black U. State, 21 P.3d 1047, 1078 (Okl.Cr.2001)
8. In Antrobus v. State, 900 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Okl.Cr.1995), this Court held that when a defendant has knowledge that stolen property came from several sources, multiple charges for concealing stolen property is not a violation of double jeopardy.
9. See Hunter V. State, 825 P.2d 1353, 1357 (Okl.Cr.1992) (Lumpkin, J., concur in part/dissent in part).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentencing for certain felonies
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 421 (2001) - Punishment for conspiracy
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1(2) (2001) - Define prior convictions
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-801(B)(1) - Operation of vehicles; reckless driving

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:

• Davis v. State, 916 P.2d 251, 261 (Okl.Cr.1996)
• Hale v. State, 888 P.2d 1027, 1028 (Okl.Cr.1995)
• Antrobus v. State, 900 P.2d 1003, 1004-05 (Okl.Cr.1995)
• Hill v. State, 898 P.2d 155, 160 (Okl.Cr.1995)
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
• Rea v. State, 34 P.3d 148, 149 (Okl.Cr.2001)
• Black v. State, 21 P.3d 1047, 1078 (Okl.Cr.2001)
• Hunter v. State, 825 P.2d 1353, 1357 (Okl.Cr.1992)