Christopher Marcus Hayes v State Of Oklahoma

C-2003-983

Filed: Sep. 9, 2004

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Christopher Marcus Hayes

Summary

Christopher Marcus Hayes appealed his conviction for Conspiracy to Possess Methamphetamine. The court reversed his conviction and sentence of five years. Judge Lile dissented.

Decision

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

Issues

• Was the Petitioner's plea of guilty voluntarily and intelligently entered?
• Did the trial court obtain a sufficient factual basis for the plea?
• Was the factual basis provided on the Summary of Facts Form sufficient to support a finding that the plea was entered intelligently?
• Should the Petitioner be allowed to withdraw his plea based on the insufficiency of the factual basis?

Findings

• the court erred
• the plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered
• the factual basis for the plea was insufficient
• the writ of certiorari is granted
• the judgment and sentence of the trial court is reversed

C-2003-983

Sep. 9, 2004

Christopher Marcus Hayes

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

MICHAEL S. RICHIE GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CLERK STRUBHAR, JUDGE:
Christopher Marcus Hayes, hereinafter Petitioner, was charged with Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine in the District Court of Garvin County, Case No.CF-2000-280. On August 31, 2001, the District Court of Cleveland County accepted jurisdiction of the matter after Petitioner waived venue. The Honorable Tom A. Lucas accepted Petitioner’s plea of guilty to an amended charge of Conspiracy to Possess Methamphetamine and placed Petitioner in the Cleveland County Drug Court, Drug Court Case No. DC-2000-24. Following Petitioner’s non-compliance with the drug court program, the State filed a motion to terminate Petitioner from the Cleveland County Drug Court Program. In response, Petitioner filed his Confession of State’s Motion to Terminate and Defendant’s Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At a hearing on the matter, the trial court terminated Petitioner from the Cleveland County Drug Court, sentenced Petitioner to five years imprisonment and denied Petitioner’s application to withdraw his plea of guilty. From the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw guilty 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 proposition of error:

I. The Petitioner’s plea of guilty was not voluntarily and intelligently entered.

In reviewing the validity of a guilty plea, we review the entire record to determine if the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, i.e., whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant. Hagar v. State, 990 P.2d 894, 896 (Okl.Cr.1999). To ensure that a guilty plea is being entered intelligently, the trial court must obtain a factual basis for the plea. Id. The factual basis of the plea must be sufficient to provide a means by which the judge can test whether the plea is being entered intelligently. Id. at 897. After reviewing the entire record, we find that the factual basis provided on the Summary of Facts Form does not constitute an admission of guilt to the original or amended crime charged. Unfortunately, there is nothing else in the record to review to buttress the factual basis on the Summary of Facts form as Petitioner did not have a preliminary hearing and waived the court reporter at the plea hearing. Although the State alluded to the fact at the motion to withdraw hearing that it could call Petitioner’s former defense attorney at the time he entered his plea to testify about the plea negotiations, no testimony was presented at the hearing, only argument. Because the factual basis is insufficient to support a finding that the plea was entered intelligently, we must grant the writ and allow Petitioner to withdraw his plea.

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

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
DAVE STOCKWELL
STOCKWELL LAW OFFICES
P.O. BOX 519
NORMAN, OK 73070

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
ROBERT F. GROSHON, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1603 W. MEMORIAL RD., STE. A
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73134-6511

ROBERT F. GROSHON, JR.
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
1603 W. MEMORIAL RD., STE. A
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73134-6511

RONALD R. BOONE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
CLEVELAND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
201 S. JONES
NORMAN, OK 73069

W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
JUDITH S. KING
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.: DISSENT
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR
CHAPEL, J.: CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Hagar v. State, 990 P.2d 894, 896 (Okl.Cr.1999).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

No Oklahoma statutes found.

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:

• Hagar v. State, 990 P.2d 894, 896 (Okl.Cr.1999)