Floyd Reid v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2009-865

Filed: Feb. 22, 2010

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Floyd Reid

Summary

Floyd Reid appealed his conviction for Robbery With a Firearm. Conviction and sentence were 20 years in prison on each of the two counts, running at the same time, plus fines on each count. Judge Lewis dissented.

Decision

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The decision of the District Court denying the Motion to Withdraw Plea is AFFIRMED. 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 Reid's plea of guilty knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered due to insufficient time to evaluate the charges and hurried advice from plea counsel?
• Was Reid's plea of guilty knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because he was mis-advised of the statutory range of punishment and not informed of the possibility of a fine?

Findings

• The trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Reid's plea, which was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered.
• Reid was not prejudiced by any error in informing him of the range of punishment.
• The fine imposed by the trial court is vacated due to it not being included in the negotiated plea.
• The decision of the District Court denying the Motion to Withdraw Plea is AFFIRMED.

C-2009-865

Feb. 22, 2010

Floyd Reid

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE:

Floyd Reid pled guilty to Counts IV and V, Robbery With a Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 801, each after former conviction of two or more felonies, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2009-3165. In accordance with a negotiated plea, the Honorable David C. Youll sentenced Reid to twenty (20) years imprisonment on each count, with the sentences running concurrently. Reid’s sentences are subject to the 85% Rule. Reid filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea which was denied after a September 25, 2009 hearing. Reid raises two propositions of error in support of his petition:

I. Reid’s pleas of guilty were not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered because he did not have sufficient time to evaluate two very serious charges first presented to him shortly before he pled guilty, and because plea counsel’s hurried advice did not address the merits of the new charges or the full options available to Reid. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in denying Reid’s request to withdraw his pleas of guilty; and

II. Reid’s pleas of guilty were not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered because he was mis-advised of the statutory range of punishment and he was never advised of the possibility of a fine as to either offense. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in denying Reid’s request to withdraw his pleas of guilty.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs, we find that Reid’s fines must be vacated. We find in Proposition I that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Reid’s plea, which was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. ² We find in Proposition II that Reid was not prejudiced by any error in informing him of the range of punishment.³ We further find in Proposition II that nothing in the record suggests Reid was informed that a fine could be imposed as part of his sentence, and the record does not reflect that a fine was part of the negotiated plea. Despite this, the trial court imposed a $500 fine on each count. If the trial court imposed a fine which was not included in the negotiated plea, that would change the plea terms; a defendant has the right to be informed of any statutory sentencing provision which creates a material consequence as the result of entering a plea.

The record does not support Reid’s claim that he did not have time to evaluate the charges against him, or that his discussions with counsel were hurried and inadequate. Both Reid and plea counsel testified that he knew and understood what he was doing. Reid admitted that he sat in the courtroom, talking with his attorney, and watched his co-defendants plead guilty. He testified that he told his attorney to see whether the State would reduce the charge and avoid the 85% Rule, but the State refused due to his prior offenses. He admitted that he understood the State was offering 20 years, concurrent, for a plea to Counts IV and V, that he knew he could get up to life in prison on each of Counts I, II, IV and V at trial, and that he agreed to take the 20 years.

The plea form states the range of punishment as ten years to life imprisonment, when the minimum sentence was actually twenty years. Reid clearly testified at the hearing on his motion to withdraw that he understood the State was offering 20 years, and that the State refused to offer ten years or anything less than 20 years. As Reid understood and agreed to the offered sentence, which reflected the actual range of punishment, he was not prejudiced by any error. As the record does not show Reid agreed to pay a fine as part of his negotiated plea, we vacate the fine imposed by the trial court.

Decision

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The decision of the District Court denying the Motion to Withdraw Plea is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, this decision. App. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

DONALD PALIK
423 SOUTH BOULDER
P.O. BOX 926
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

TERRY J. HULL
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

MICHELLE KEELY
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TULSA COUNTY COURTHOUSE
500 SOUTH DENVER
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103
ATTORNEY FOR STATE

OPINION BY: CHAPEL, J.
C. JOHNSON, P.J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801
2. Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, IT 4, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142
3. 20 O.S. 2001, § 3001.1
4. Lewis, 2009 OK CR 30, IT 5, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142
5. Hunter v. State, 1992 OK CR 1, 825 P.2d 1353, 1355

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801 (2001) - Robbery With a Firearm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 20 § 3001.1 (2001) - Range of punishment

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, 2009 OK CR 30, IT 4, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142
• Lewis, 2009 OK CR 30, IT 5, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142
• Hunter v. State, 1992 OK CR 1, 825 P.2d 1353, 1355