Leon Lee Hooks v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2009-900
Filed: Jun. 9, 2010
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Leon Lee Hooks
Summary
Leon Lee Hooks appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. Conviction and sentence: thirty years imprisonment with the first ten years to be served, and a $100 fine. Judge Mike Norman accepted his guilty plea but later, Hooks wanted to withdraw that plea, claiming his lawyer was not helping him properly. The court said he didn’t have a good lawyer during that time because the lawyer couldn't defend him against his own work. The court decided Hooks needed a new hearing with a lawyer who didn’t have a conflict of interest. A dissenting opinion was noted by Judge Lumpkin.
Decision
The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for a hearing on the Application 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 Leon Lee Hooks and his counsel during the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea?
- did Hooks receive effective, conflict-free assistance of counsel during that hearing?
- should Hooks have been given the option of proceeding with conflict-free counsel instead of either pro se or with conflicted counsel?
Findings
- the court erred in not providing Hooks with conflict-free counsel during the hearing on his motion to withdraw plea
- the case is remanded for a new evidentiary hearing on Hooks' application to withdraw plea
C-2009-900
Jun. 9, 2010
Leon Lee Hooks
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
MICHAEL S. RICHIE A. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:
Petitioner Leon Lee Hooks entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2009-463, to First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of a Felony in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2008, § 1114. The Honorable Mike Norman accepted Hooks’ plea and sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment, suspending all but the first ten years, and a $100.00 fine. Hooks filed a timely pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court held the prescribed hearing and denied his motion.
Hooks appeals the district court’s order and asks this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari remanding this matter to the District Court with either instructions to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea or for a complete evidentiary hearing on the merits of his motion with the assistance of effective, conflict-free counsel.
This case raises the single issue of whether Hooks received effective, conflict-free, assistance of counsel during the hearing on his motion to withdraw plea. 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.
Hooks’ complaints in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea focused primarily on counsel’s ineffectiveness prior to and at the plea hearing. Thus Hooks’ interests at the evidentiary hearing were to testify against his lawyer to establish that his guilty plea was entered involuntarily based on counsel’s deficient performance; issues which were not addressed during the hearing. Hooks’ attorney stood virtually mute throughout the entire proceeding because the attorney was faced with the dilemma of either trying to prove his client’s case that he was ineffective or disputing his claim. Given the claims raised by Hooks, the district court should have given Hooks the option of proceeding with conflict-free counsel rather than the options of proceeding pro se or with conflicted counsel. This error requires a new evidentiary hearing in accordance with Hooks’ constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.
The case is remanded for a new hearing on Hooks’ application 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 Application 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 MUSKOGEE COUNTY
THE HONORABLE MIKE NORMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT
LARRY VICKERS
428 COURT STREET
MUSKOGEE, OK 74401
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
S. GAIL GUNNING
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
FARLEY WARD
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MUSKOGEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
MUSKOGEE, OK 74401
ATTORNEY FOR STATE
OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, V.P.J.
C. JOHNSON, P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results
LEWIS, J.: Concur
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2008, § 1114
- 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 § 1114 (2011) - First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of a Felony
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2010) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 (2010) - Appellate Procedure
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