Blog

IN court (If CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA FEB 13 2008 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA MICHAEL S. RICHIE CLERK AARON PERRY HAMPTON, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Petitioner, V. Case No. C-2007-554 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent. SUMMARY OPINION DENYING WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND REMANDING FOR CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE LEWIS, JUDGE: Aaron Perry Hampton, Petitioner, entered blind pleas of guilty to Count 1, burglary in the first degree, in violation of 21 O.S.2001; § 1431; and nolo contendere to Count 2, assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 645. Petitioner also pled nolo contendere to Count 4, assault and battery, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2006, § 644; and Count 5, obstructing an officer in violation of 21 O.S.2001, 540, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2006-5407. The State alleged Petitioner committed Counts 1 and 2 after prior conviction of two (2) or more felonies. The Honorable William C. Kellough, District Judge, convicted Petitioner upon his pleas and ordered a pre- sentence investigation. Judge Kellough later sentenced Petitioner to concurrent terms of thirty five (35) years imprisonment and a $ 2000.00 fine in each of Counts 1 and 2; ninety (90) days in jail and a $ 500.00 fine in Count 4; and one (1) year in jail and a $ 1000.00 fine in Count 5. Petitioner moved to withdraw the pleas. After evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the application. Petitioner seeks the writ of certiorari to vacate the judgment of the District Court, 22 O.S.2001, § 1051(a), alleging three propositions of error: 1. The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion By Overruling Mr. Hampton’s Motion To Withdraw His Pleas Because Petitioner Did Not Knowingly And Voluntarily Enter His Pleas. 2. Petitioner’s Sentences In Count 1 And Count 2 That Total Thirty Five Years Are Excessive, Should Shock The Conscience Of This Court And Should Be Favorably Modified. 3. This Court Should Remand Mr. Hampton’s Case To The District Court Of Tulsa County With Instructions To Correct The Judgment And Sentence Documents By An Order Nunc Pro Tunc. In Proposition One, we find the circumstances show that Petitioner was mentally competent to enter his plea and did so knowingly and voluntarily. Ocampo v. State, 1989 OK CR 38,9 7, 778 P.2d 920, 923. Petitioner has not shown that his guilty plea was a result of ignorance, inadvertence, or improper influence. Dangerfield v. State, 1987 OK CR 185, I 9, 742 P.2d 573, 575. Proposition Two alleges an excessive sentence. The sentence imposed on a defendant’s plea of guilty or nolo contendere is within the District Court’s discretion. The sentences here are within the statutory range authorized by law and are appropriate to the seriousness of the offense. Rea U. State, 2001 OK CR 28, 34 P.3d 148. We decline to modify them. Proposition Two is denied. 2 In Proposition Three, Petitioner points out that due to clerical errors, the Judgment and Sentence documents do not properly reflect the District Court’s order that all sentences are to be served concurrently as pronounced by the District Court at sentencing. He also points out that Judgment and Sentence documents recite the wrong case number for a prior conviction as CF-91-566, rather than the correct case number, CF-1991-3566. While the latter error threatens no conceivable prejudice to Petitioner, we REMAND this matter to the District Court of Tulsa County with instructions to enter corrected Judgments and Sentences, and otherwise AFFIRM. DECISION The Petition for the Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Tulsa County is REMANDED for correction of the clerical errors noted herein but otherwise AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. 3 AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY THE HONORABLE WILLIAM C. KELLOUGH, DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES AT TRIAL APPEARANCES ON APPEAL DAVID PHILLIPS ANDREAS T. PITSIRI ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL 423 S. BOULDER, STE. 300 OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM TULSA, OK 74103 P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070-0926 RICHARD CLARK 2431 E. 51ST STREET, STE. 401 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER TULSA, OK 74105 NO RESPONSE NECESSARY ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT JASON RUSH ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 500 S. DENVER TULSA, OK 74103 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE OPINION BY LEWIS, J. LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur C. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: Concur CHAPEL, J.: Concur A. JOHNSON, J.: Concur 4

Click Here To Download PDF