David Wayne Laughlin v State Of Oklahoma
C-2004-903
Filed: Jun. 13, 2005
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: David Wayne Laughlin
Summary
David Wayne Laughlin appealed his conviction for Sexual Abuse of a Child. His conviction and sentence were for fifty years in prison. The court found that Laughlin had the right to an attorney at his hearing to withdraw his guilty plea and that there was a conflict of interest with his lawyer. Because of this error, Laughlin's case was sent back for a new hearing on his plea. Judge Chapel and Judge Lumpkin agreed with this decision, but a third judge, Judge C. Johnson, did not dissent.
Decision
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for a hearing on the Application to Withdraw Plea consistent with this Opinion. 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.
Issues
- Was Mr. Laughlin denied his right to counsel at his hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea?
- Was Petitioner's plea of no contest entered as a result of coercion and undue influence, therefore not voluntary?
- Did Mr. Laughlin receive harsher punishment than recommended by the District Attorney despite entering a "blind plea"?
Findings
- the court erred
C-2004-903
Jun. 13, 2005
David Wayne Laughlin
Appellantv
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
GRANTING CERTIORARI AND REMANDING FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW
A. JOHNSON, JUDGE: David Wayne Laughlin, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Child in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2003-4252. The Honorable Ray Elliott accepted Laughlin’s plea and sentenced Laughlin to fifty (50) years imprisonment. Laughlin filed a timely pro se application to withdraw his guilty plea. Following the prescribed hearing, the district court denied Laughlin’s application. Laughlin now appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw plea and asks this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.
Laughlin raises three propositions of error in support of his petition for writ of certiorari:
I. Mr. Laughlin was denied his right to counsel at his hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea;
II. Petitioner’s plea of no contest was entered as a result of coercion and undue influence; therefore, the plea was not voluntary; and
III. Although a blind plea was entered, Mr. Laughlin appears to have been denied the benefit of a bargain when he was subjected to harsher punishment than was recommended by the District Attorney.
We find the error in Proposition I requires remand. This relief renders the other propositions moot and we do not consider them. Laughlin contends that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at the evidentiary hearing was violated because of an actual conflict of interest between his attorney and himself. As the hearing on the application to withdraw began, counsel asked the district court to allow him to withdraw as counsel, stating that there was a conflict of interest and that he would likely be called as a witness at the motion hearing. Counsel told the district court there was an issue regarding undue influence based on his representation of Laughlin at the plea. Questioning of Laughlin established that part of the basis for his application to withdraw his plea was a claim that he was unduly influenced or coerced by counsel to forego the right to a jury trial and enter a guilty plea.
We have held a defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel is violated where an actual conflict of interest exists between the defendant and counsel concerning a motion to withdraw plea. Carey V. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116, 1117-18. Such a conflict existed here. Counsel correctly moved to withdraw from representation and the district court should have granted the motion and appointed new counsel for the hearing on Laughlin’s application to withdraw plea. This error requires a new plea hearing in accordance with Laughlin’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. The case is remanded for a new hearing on the application to withdraw plea.
DECISION
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for a hearing on the Application to Withdraw Plea consistent with this Opinion. 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.
Footnotes:
- Carey V. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116, 1117-18.
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005).
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:
- Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116, 1117-18