Floyd Ray Williams, Jr. v The State of Oklahoma

C-2008-682

Filed: Apr. 17, 2009

Not for Publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Floyd Ray Williams, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Manslaughter in the First Degree and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. His total conviction and sentence added up to 51 years in prison. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Williams's sentence of imprisonment in Count IV is REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS. The District Court of Tulsa County is directed to issue an Order Nunc Pro Tunc correcting the Judgment and Sentence to reflect that Williams entered pleas of nolo contendere, and that his conviction in Count II is for a violation of 47 O.S.2001, § 10-102.1. 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 Williams's sentence of one year imprisonment in Count IV fundamentally erroneous and should it be vacated?
• Were Williams's pleas made knowingly and voluntarily despite not being advised of the correct range of punishment for several counts?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Williams's motion to withdraw his pleas?
• Were Williams's consecutive sentences totaling 51 years imprisonment excessive and shocking to the conscience?
• Was Williams prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel?
• Does the cumulative effect of all errors warrant relief for Williams?
• Should Williams's case be remanded to the District Court with instructions to correct judgments and sentences by an order nunc pro tunc?

Findings

• Williams's sentence of imprisonment in Count IV must be remanded with instructions to dismiss.
• His pleas were found to be knowingly and voluntarily made despite not being informed of the correct range of punishment for Counts II and III.
• The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams's motion to withdraw his pleas.
• The trial court appropriately ordered that Williams's sentences be served consecutively and they were not excessive.
• Counsel was not found to be ineffective.
• No further relief is warranted after vacating Williams's sentence in Count IV.
• The District Court is directed to correct the Judgment and Sentence to reflect Williams entered pleas of nolo contendere for all four counts.

C-2008-682

Apr. 17, 2009

Floyd Ray Williams, Jr.

Appellant

v

The State of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE: Floyd Ray Williams, Jr. pled nolo contendere to Count I, Manslaughter in the First Degree in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 711; Count II, Leaving the Scene of an Accident – Death, in violation of 47 O.S.2001, § 10-102; Count III, Eluding an Officer in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 540A; and Count IV, Driving Under Suspension (misdemeanor) in violation of 47 O.S.Supp.2005, § 6-303(B), all after former conviction of two or more felonies, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2006-5283. The Honorable Clancy Smith sentenced Williams to thirty (30) years imprisonment and a fine of $500 (Count I); ten (10) years imprisonment and a $500 fine on each of Counts II and III; and one (1) year imprisonment in the county jail and a $250 fine (Count IV). Williams’s Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty was denied after a hearing.¹ Williams timely filed this petition for writ of certiorari.²

Williams raises seven propositions of error in support of his petition:

I. Williams’s sentence of one year imprisonment in Count IV constitutes fundamental error and should be vacated by this Court;
II. Williams’s pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily because he was not advised of the correct range of punishment with respect to several counts. This constitutes fundamental error.;
III. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Williams’s motion to withdraw his pleas because he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his pleas;
IV. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, Williams’s consecutive sentences that total 51 years imprisonment are excessive, should shock the conscience of this court and should be favorably modified;
V. Williams was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel;
VI. The cumulative effect of all these errors warrants relief for Williams; and
VII. This Court should remand Williams’s case to the District Court of Tulsa County with instructions to correct the judgments and sentences by an order nunc pro tunc.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs, we find that Williams’s sentence of imprisonment in Count IV must be remanded with instructions to dismiss. Neither further modification nor reversal is required by the law or evidence. We find in Proposition I that 47 O.S.Supp.2005, § 6-303(B), the statute authorizing punishment for driving with a suspended license, authorizes imposition of a term of imprisonment for a first offense.³ We construe the plain, ordinary meaning of statutory language in order to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Williams’s argument turns on punctuation. Sections (B)(1) and (B)(2) are set off with semicolons, but a comma follows Section (3). Williams apparently argues that this comma requires us to read the imprisonment section as a part of Section (3). However, unlike the citation in Williams’s brief, the imprisonment section is actually set apart from Sections (1), (2) and (3) and forms a separate paragraph in both online and print versions of the statute. In his brief at page 8, Williams includes the imprisonment clause within the paragraph containing Section (3). He appears to have made this change in order to give his argument force. This is not a mere quibble over line placement. By setting the imprisonment section in a paragraph separate from all the fine provisions, the Legislature has signaled its intent to treat imprisonment separately from the fine provisions.⁴

We find in Proposition II that, although Williams was not informed of the correct range of punishment on Counts II and III, his pleas to those charges were knowing and voluntary. We further find that Williams was incorrectly informed that Count IV carried no sentence of imprisonment. Because Williams was not aware, at the time of his plea, that he could be sentenced to imprisonment on this charge, his sentence of imprisonment cannot stand. Williams’s sentence of one year imprisonment for Count IV must be vacated, and the $250 fine imposed on that count is affirmed.

We find in Proposition III that Williams’s pleas were knowing and voluntary and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his Motion to Withdraw. We find in Proposition IV that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in ordering that Williams’s sentences be served consecutively. We further find that under the facts and circumstances of this case Williams’s sentences are not excessive.

We find in Proposition V that counsel was not ineffective. We find in Proposition VI that, having vacated Williams’s sentence of imprisonment on Count IV, no further relief is warranted. We find in Proposition VII that Williams was convicted in Count II of leaving the scene of an accident where a death occurred in violation of 47 O.S.2001, § 10-102.1. In addition, he entered pleas of nolo contendere, rather than guilty, to all four counts. The District Court is directed to correct the Judgment and Sentence to remedy these clerical errors through an order nunc pro tunc.

Decision

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Williams’s sentence of imprisonment in Count IV is REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS. The District Court of Tulsa County is directed to issue an Order Nunc Pro Tunc correcting the Judgment and Sentence to reflect that Williams entered pleas of nolo contendere, and that his conviction in Count II is for a violation of 47 O.S.2001, § 10-102.1. 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.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Williams's Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty was denied after a hearing.
2. 47 O.S.Supp.2005, § 6-303(B), the statute authorizing punishment for driving with a suspended license, authorizes imposition of a term of imprisonment for a first offense.
3. State v. Love, 2004 OK CR 11, 85 P.3d 849, 850 n. 5: "Legislative intent controls statutory interpretation. Intent is ascertained from the whole act in light of its general purpose and objective considering relevant provisions together to give full force and effect to each." (quoting Keating v. Edmondson, 2001 OK 110, 37 P.3d 882, 886.
4. Hunter v. State, 1992 OK CR 1, 825 P.2d 1353, 1355.
5. Chastain v. State, 1985 OK CR 117, 706 P.2d 539, 540, overruled on other grounds Luster v. State, 1987 OK CR 261, 746 P.2d 1159.
6. King v. State, 1976 OK CR 103, 553 P.2d 529, 535.
7. 22 O.S.2001, § 976; Harris v. State, 1989 OK CR 10, 772 P.2d 1329, 1330.
8. Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, 34 P.3d 148, 149.
9. Harris U. State, 2007 OK CR 28, 164 P.3d 1103, 1114; Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2535, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2069-70, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
10. Bell v. State, 2007 OK CR 43, 172 P.3d 622, 627 (no cumulative error where single error has been addressed).
11. Brown v. State, 2008 OK CR 3, 177 P.3d 577, 582-83.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711 (2001) - Manslaughter in the First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 10-102 (2001) - Leaving the Scene of an Accident - Death
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540A (2001) - Eluding an Officer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-303(B) (Supp. 2005) - Driving Under Suspension
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 10-102.1 (2001) - Leaving the Scene of an Accident - Death
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 976 (2001) - Sentencing - Consecutive Sentences
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2009) - Mandate Issuance

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:

• King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, 182 P.3d 842, 844
• Byrd v. Caswell, 2001 OK CR 29, 34 P.3d 647, 649
• State v. Love, 2004 OK CR 11, 85 P.3d 849, 850 n. 5
• Hunter v. State, 1992 OK CR 1, 825 P.2d 1353, 1355
• Chastain v. State, 1985 OK CR 117, 706 P.2d 539, 540
• King v. State, 1976 OK CR 103, 553 P.2d 529, 535
• Harris v. State, 1989 OK CR 10, 772 P.2d 1329, 1330
• Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, 34 P.3d 148, 149
• Harris v. State, 2007 OK CR 28, 164 P.3d 1103, 1114
• Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2535, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003)
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2069-70, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
• Bell v. State, 2007 OK CR 43, 172 P.3d 622, 627
• Brown v. State, 2008 OK CR 3, 177 P.3d 577, 582-83