Valentin Palos-Tellos v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2009-1192
Filed: Nov. 19, 2010
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Valentin Palos-Tellos
Summary
Valentin Palos-Tellos appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and Attempted Kidnapping. Conviction and sentence: life imprisonment for the first charge and five years for the second, to be served at the same time. The court decided that Palos-Tellos had a real conflict of interest with his lawyer when he tried to withdraw his guilty plea. The court ruled that he deserves a new hearing on his plea withdrawal, so his case was sent back to the lower court for that purpose.
Decision
The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for a hearing on the motion 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. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there an actual conflict of interest between the defendant and counsel during the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea?
- Did the plea counsel fail to adequately inform the defendant about the elements the State needed to prove at trial?
- Was the defendant's guilty plea entered involuntarily due to counsel's failure to provide adequate advice?
- Should the district court have provided the defendant the option to proceed with conflict-free counsel during the hearing?
- Is the defendant entitled to a new evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw plea based on the aforementioned issues?
Findings
- the court erred in denying Palos-Tellos' motion to withdraw plea due to a conflict of interest with his counsel
- the case is remanded for a new evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw plea
C-2009-1192
Nov. 19, 2010
Valentin Palos-Tellos
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
A. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:
Petitioner Valentin Palos-Tellos entered blind pleas of nolo contendere in the District Court of Kingfisher County, Case No. CF-2008-85, to Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2007, § 652 (Count 1), and Attempted Kidnapping, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2007, § 741 (Count 2). The Honorable Ronald G. Franklin accepted Palos-Tellos’ pleas and after completion of a pre-sentence investigation, sentenced him to life imprisonment on Count 1, and five years imprisonment on Count 2. Judge Franklin ordered Palos-Tellos’ sentences to be served concurrently with each other.
Palos-Tellos filed a timely motion to withdraw plea, and, after a hearing, the district court denied the motion. Palos-Tellos now appeals the district court’s order and asks this Court to grant the Writ of Certiorari and allow him either to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial, reverse and remand his case for a new hearing on his motion to withdraw plea or favorably modify his sentence of life imprisonment on Count 1. Palos-Tellos’ claims in his second and third propositions—namely that his lawyer had a conflict of interest that affected his representation at the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea—require discussion and relief.
Because we grant Palos-Tellos’ petition for writ of certiorari on those claims, the remaining claims need not be addressed. We have held that a defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel is violated where an actual conflict of interest exists between the defendant and counsel at a hearing on the defendant’s motion to withdraw plea. See Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, IT 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118. Such a conflict existed here. The complaint in Palos-Tellos’ motion to withdraw plea was based upon plea counsel’s failure to inform him about the elements the State would have to prove at a trial. Thus, his interests at the evidentiary hearing were to testify in support of his claim to establish that his guilty plea was entered involuntarily based on counsel’s failure to adequately advise him; the issues of whether plea counsel provided adequate advice and whether Petitioner’s plea was knowing and voluntary were not addressed at all. Nor did defense counsel attempt to ask Palos-Tellos questions to develop his claim. Palos-Tellos’ attorney stood virtually mute throughout the brief proceeding because the attorney was faced with the dilemma of either trying to prove his client’s case against him or disputing his client’s claim.
Given the claim raised by Palos-Tellos, the district court should have given Palos-Tellos the option of proceeding with conflict-free counsel. This error requires a new evidentiary hearing in accordance with Palos-Tellos’ constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. The case is remanded for a new hearing on Palos-Tellos’ motion to withdraw plea.
DECISION
The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for a hearing on the motion 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. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF KINGFISHER COUNTY
THE HONORABLE RONALD G. FRANKLIN, DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
BLAYNE ALLSUP
3910 N. COLLEGE AVE.
BETHANY, OK 73008
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
ANDREAS T. PITSIRI
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
BRYAN SLABOTSKY
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
KINGFISHER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
101 S. MAIN
KINGFISHER, OK 73750
ATTORNEY FOR STATE
OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, V.P.J.
C. JOHNSON, P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur
LEWIS, J.: Concur
SMITH, J.: Concur
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2007, § 652
- 21 O.S.Supp.2007, § 741
- Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, IT 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652 (2007) - Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 741 (2007) - Attempted Kidnapping
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2010) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
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