Christopher A. Simmons v The State of Oklahoma
C-2007-50
Filed: Feb. 14, 2008
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Christopher A. Simmons
Summary
Christopher A. Simmons appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Handgun. Conviction and sentence were ten years in prison for each case, to run at the same time. Judge L. Johnson dissented. In the case, Simmons had been charged in two different cases for having a handgun after he had previous felony convictions. He said he was guilty and was given a ten-year prison sentence for each case. Later, Simmons wanted to withdraw his guilty plea and claimed that he did not have proper help from his lawyer during the hearing to withdraw. The court agreed that his lawyer had a conflict of interest and did not defend Simmons properly. Because of this, the court decided to send the case back for a new hearing where Simmons could have a lawyer who was not in conflict.
Decision
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED, and the cause REMANDED to the district court for a proper hearing on the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. 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 there ineffective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea?
- Did an actual conflict of interest adversely affect the lawyer's performance, impacting the petitioner's ability to receive effective assistance of counsel?
- Was the petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on the motion to withdraw?
Findings
- The court erred by denying Petitioner the effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
- Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated due to an actual conflict of interest affecting his lawyer's performance.
- The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted, and the case is remanded to the district court for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty plea.
C-2007-50
Feb. 14, 2008
Christopher A. Simmons
Appellantv
The State of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Petitioner was charged in Oklahoma County District Court with Unlawful Possession of a Handgun in both CF-2005-4940 and CF-2006-1377. Both cases were charged after former felony convictions. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charges in each case and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on each with the sentences to run concurrently. Petitioner filed a pro se Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. At the conclusion of a hearing on this motion, his request was denied. It is from this ruling that Petitioner appeals to this Court.
Petitioner raises the following proposition of error:
1. Mr. Simmons was denied effective assistance of counsel.
After thorough consideration of the proposition, and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and brief of Petitioner, we remand this case to the district court for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw. Petitioner alleges in his sole proposition that he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he was represented at the hearing by counsel with whom he had conflicting interests. Although Petitioner did not object to the conflict of interest at the hearing on the motion to withdraw, the record supports a finding that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw as his defense counsel defended his own interests rather than those of his client. See Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, ¶ 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118. Thus, this case must also be remanded to the district court for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw in which Petitioner may be represented by conflict-free counsel.
DECISION
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED, and the cause REMANDED to the district court for a proper hearing on the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. 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.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE JERRY D. BASS, DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES AT PLEA
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
WITHDRAWAL HEARING
LISBETH L. MCCARTY
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
DON JACKSON
217 NORTH HARVEY, STE. 105
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
PATRICK QUILLIAN
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 505
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE
OPINION BY C. JOHNSON, V.P.J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCURS IN RESULTS
CHAPEL, J.: CONCURS
A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCURS
LEWIS, J.: CONCURS
Footnotes:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 19
- Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 1 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118
- 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, I 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118