Alan Daniels v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2008-593

Filed: Mar. 2, 2009

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Alan Daniels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana. Conviction and sentence were modified to five years imprisonment. Judge C. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to MODIFY Daniels's sentence to five years imprisonment. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2009), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there sufficient evidence to prove that Daniels committed the alleged violations of his probation?
• did Daniels enter his plea knowingly and intelligently?
• is the sentence imposed on Daniels excessive and should it be modified?

Findings

• the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence sufficient to prove that Daniels violated the terms of his probation
• the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Daniels's plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered
• Daniels's life sentence shocks our conscience and must be modified to five years imprisonment

C-2008-593

Mar. 2, 2009

Alan Daniels

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

MICHAEL S. RICHIE A. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:

On July 14, 2005, Petitioner Alan Daniels entered a guilty plea in the District Court of Delaware County, Case No. CF-2005-183, to Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana in violation of 63 O.S.2001, § 2-509. The Honorable Alicia Littlefield accepted Daniels’s plea, deferred sentencing for five years, and ordered Daniels to serve ten days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. On January 9, 2006, the State filed a Motion to Accelerate Deferred Sentence. On February 14, 2006, the District Court heard the State’s motion to accelerate and found that Daniels had violated the terms and conditions of his deferral. The district court sustained the State’s motion and sentenced Daniels to life imprisonment. Over the next two years, Daniels sought to withdraw his plea and appeal the validity of the acceleration order. Daniels’s motion to withdraw his plea was finally heard on June 12, 2008. The district court upheld the validity of Daniels’s plea and denied his motion. Daniels appeals the district court’s order and asks this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari allowing him to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. In the alternative, Daniels asks that his case be remanded with instructions to vacate and/or favorably modify the sentence imposed.

This case raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Daniels committed the alleged violations of his probation; (2) whether Daniels’s plea was knowingly and intelligently entered; and (3) whether Daniels’s sentence is excessive and should be modified. We deny certiorari and affirm the Judgment of the district court. We find, however, that Daniels’s sentence must be modified for the reasons discussed below.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence sufficient to prove that Daniels’s conduct violated the protective order against him and that he violated the terms of his probation by violating the protective order and flunking his drug test. See Lewis v. State, 2001 OK CR 6, ¶ 7, 21 P.3d 64, 65.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Daniels’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. See Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, ¶ 18, 152 P.3d 244, 251.
3. A sentence within the statutory range will be affirmed unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience of this Court. Head v. State, 2006 OK CR 44, ¶ 27, 146 P.3d 1141, 1148. Daniels was accelerated to the maximum sentence (life imprisonment) after originally receiving a five-year deferred sentence for growing a 1.5 inch marijuana plant. The record is sufficient to prove that he violated the terms and conditions of his deferral. The sentence imposed, however, is far too severe in light of the circumstances of this case. Daniels’s life sentence shocks our conscience and must be modified to five years imprisonment.

DECISION

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to MODIFY Daniels’s sentence to five years imprisonment. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2009), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELWARE COUNTY

THE HONORABLE ALICIA LITTLEFIELD, SPECIAL JUDGE

APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT

KENNY WRIGHT
P.O. BOX 960
JAY, OKLAHOMA 74346-0960
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

TASHA A. STEWARD
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

TERRELL CROSSON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 528
JAY, OK 74346-0528
ATTORNEY FOR STATE

W. A. DREW EDMONDSON
OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.E. 21 ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, V.P.J.
C. JOHNSON, P.J.: Concur in Part, Dissent in Part
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur
CHAPEL, J.: Concur
LEWIS, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.2001, § 2-509.
2. Daniels v. State, Case No. PC-2006-404 and Case No. PC-2008-395.
3. Lewis v. State, 2001 OK CR 6, II 7, 21 P.3d 64, 65.
4. Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, T 18, 152 P.3d 244, 251.
5. Head v. State, 2006 OK CR 44, I 27, 146 P.3d 1141, 1148.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-509 (2001) - Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 22-435 (2009) - Appeal Process
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentence Modification

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:

• Lewis v. State, 2001 OK CR 6, II 7, 21 P.3d 64, 65
• Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, T 18, 152 P.3d 244, 251
• Head v. State, 2006 OK CR 44, I 27, 146 P.3d 1141, 1148
• Daniels v. State, Case No. PC-2006-404
• Daniels v. State, Case No. PC-2008-395