Seno McKinley Speed v State Of Oklahoma

C-2004-598

Filed: Aug. 12, 2005

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Seno McKinley Speed

Summary

Seno McKinley Speed appealed his conviction for several offenses, including Possession of a Controlled Substance and misdemeanors like Eluding a police officer and Resisting an Officer. His conviction and sentence totaled three years in prison plus various fines, with all sentences served at the same time. The court allowed him to withdraw his guilty pleas for the misdemeanor charges because there was not enough evidence to support them. The decision was not unanimous; one judge, C. Johnson, dissented.

Decision

The petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. The relief ordered for Proposition I renders the other propositions moot and we do not consider them.

Issues

• Was there a factual basis to support the guilty pleas to the misdemeanor charges?
• Did the trial court err in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas due to lack of deliberation and understanding?
• Must the sentence for resisting an officer be modified because it exceeds the statutory maximum?

Findings

• the court erred

C-2004-598

Aug. 12, 2005

Seno McKinley Speed

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

A. JOHNSON, J.: Seno McKinley Speed, Petitioner, entered a guilty plea in the District Court of Comanche County in Case Nos. CF-2003-405 – Possession of a Controlled Substance, CM-2003-1195 – Eluding a police officer, CM-2003-1196 – Resisting an Officer, TR-2003-2799 – Driving Under Suspension, TR-2003-2800 – Reckless Driving, TR-2003-3714 – Driving Under Suspension; and TR-2003-3715 – Failure to Display Lighted Lamps. The Honorable Keith B. Aycock accepted Speed’s plea and sentenced him as follows:

CASE NO: SENTENCE:
CF-2003-405 Three (3) YEARS IMPRISONMENT PLUS FINES AND COSTS TOTALING $1595.00.
CM-2003-1195 One (1) YEAR IMPRISONMENT PLUS $1,000 FINE.¹
CM-2003-1196 One (1) YEAR IMPRISONMENT PLUS $1,000 FINE.
TR-2003-2799 Thirty (30) DAYS IMPRISONMENT PLUS $500 FINE.
TR-2003-2800 One (1) YEAR IMPRISONMENT PLUS $500 FINE.
TR-2003-3714 One (1) YEAR IMPRISONMENT PLUS $500.00 FINE.
TR-2003-3715 $25.00 FINE

The district court ordered all of the sentences to be served concurrently. Speed now appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and asks this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari and allow him to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the misdemeanor cases and proceed to trial.

Speed raises three propositions of error in support of his petition for writ of certiorari:

I. The trial court erred in not allowing Petitioner to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the misdemeanor charges because there was no factual basis to support those convictions;

II. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his pleas of guilty in the misdemeanor cases because they were entered without deliberation as a result of ignorance, inadvertence, confusion, and misunderstanding; and¹

III. Petitioner’s sentence for resisting an officer must be modified because it exceeds the statutory maximum.

In Proposition I, Speed argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas to his misdemeanor charges because they were not supported by a factual basis. This Court has held that every plea must be supported by a factual basis. See Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 4, 990 P.2d 894, 896-897. The State confesses error and agrees there is no factual basis to support Speed’s misdemeanor pleas in this record. The parties agree that Speed should be permitted to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the misdemeanor counts. Based on this record, we grant Speed’s petition for a writ of certiorari, remand this matter to the District Court and direct the District Court to allow Speed to withdraw his guilty pleas in CM-2003-1195, CM-2003-1196, TR-2003-2799, TR-2003-2800, TR-2003-3714 and TR-2003-3715 and proceed to trial.

DECISION

The petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.² The relief ordered for Proposition I renders the other propositions moot and we do not consider them.

OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, J.
CHAPEL, P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: Concur
C. JOHNSON, J.: Concur

RB

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 1 Speed does not appeal his felony conviction in CF-2003-405.
2. 2 The relief ordered for Proposition I renders the other propositions moot and we do not consider them.
3. 3 See Hagar U. State, 1999 OK CR 35, 14, 990 P.2d 894, 896-897.

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, 1999 OK CR 35, I 4, 990 P.2d 894, 896-897