Roddy Maurice Churchill v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2009-69
Filed: Aug. 18, 2009
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Roddy Maurice Churchill
Summary
Roddy Maurice Churchill appealed his conviction for assault and drug possession. His conviction and sentence included six years in prison for assault, one year in jail for resisting an officer, and nine years suspended for drug possession. Judge C. Johnson dissented.
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. (2009), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there a denial of effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea?
- Did the judge err in failing to appoint conflict counsel for the hearing on the motion to withdraw?
Findings
- the court erred in denying effective assistance of counsel during the hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty plea
- the case is remanded for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw with conflict-free counsel
C-2009-69
Aug. 18, 2009
Roddy Maurice Churchill
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
GRANTING CERTIORARI
Petitioner was charged in Caddo County District Court with Use of a Vehicle in Discharge of a Weapon and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer in Case No. CF-2007-111, and Unlawful Possession of a Narcotic with Intent to Distribute Within 1,000 Feet of a Daycare in Case No. CF-2008-154. Petitioner entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the amended charges of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Resisting an Officer in Case No. CF-2007-111, and Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance in Case No CF-2008-154. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment on the assault conviction, one year in the county jail for resisting an officer, and nine years suspended for possession of CDS. The sentences in Case No. CF-2007-111 were ordered to run concurrently with each other and consecutive to the suspended sentence imposed in Case No. CF-2008-154.
Petitioner filed a 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 propositions of error:
1. Mr. Churchill was denied effective assistance of counsel.
2. The judge erred in failing to end the hearing and appoint conflict counsel.
After thorough consideration of the propositions, 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 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. His attorney at the hearing on the motion to withdraw was the same attorney who had represented him when he entered his plea.
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. After Petitioner testified that he was incorrectly advised that he would get paroled after serving 25% of his sentence, defense counsel asked no further questions about this claim and made no further reference to it. Rather, he asked Petitioner questions to elicit information that he had advised Petitioner what would happen if he was allowed to withdraw his plea. 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 U. State, 1995 OK CR 55, I 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118. Thus, this case must 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. (2009), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Footnotes:
- See Carey U. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118.
- Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2009).
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - Rights of Accused - Plea of Guilty
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1051 - Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1080 - Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
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