Marcus Jermaine Christon v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2010-695
Filed: Nov. 2, 2011
Not for Publication
Prevailing Party: Marcus Jermaine Christon
Summary
Marcus Jermaine Christon appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including burglary and possession of methamphetamine. His conviction and sentence were for 10 years in prison for each count, which would run at the same time. One judge, C. Johnson, disagreed with the decision. Christon claimed that he was tricked by his lawyer into pleading guilty to a serious crime when he thought it was not so serious. He asked to take back his guilty plea because he felt he deserved a different attorney who didn't have a conflict of interest. The court agreed that he should have been provided a new lawyer to help him with his request to change his plea. The case was sent back to the lower court for a new hearing with a different lawyer to ensure Christon got fair representation.
Decision
The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel and a new hearing on Christon's motion to withdraw his plea consistent with this opinion.
Issues
- Was there a violation of Marcus Jermaine Christon's right to conflict-free counsel during the motion to withdraw his guilty plea?
- Did the trial court improperly fail to appoint new counsel for Christon when he asserted ineffective assistance and a conflict of interest regarding his original attorney?
- Was Christon deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on his motion to withdraw the plea?
Findings
- the trial court erred by failing to appoint new, conflict-free counsel for Christon on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea
- the case is remanded for a new hearing on Christon's motion to withdraw his plea
C-2010-695
Nov. 2, 2011
Marcus Jermaine Christon
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
GRANTING PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
SMITH, JUDGE: Marcus Jermaine Christon was charged by Information, on March 15, 2010, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2010-1811, with Burglary in the First Degree, under 21 O.S.2001, § 1431 (Count I); Conspiracy to Commit Burglary in the First Degree, under 21 O.S.2001, §§ 421, 1431 (Count II); Concealing Stolen Property, under 21 O.S.2001, § 1713 (Count III); Larceny of an Automobile, under 21 O.S.Supp.2002, § 1720 (Count IV); and Possession of CDS (Methamphetamine), under 63 O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-402 (Count V).1
According to the district court docket, preliminary hearing was held in Christon’s case on May 3, 2010, although there is no transcript in the record of this hearing.2 On June 18, 2010, Christon entered an agreed plea of guilty before the Honorable Donald L. Deason, District Judge, to Counts I, III, IV, and V as originally charged, all AFCF, based on one prior felony. Christon was sentenced that same day by the Honorable Donald L. Deason, in accord with the agreement stated on the plea form, to imprisonment for 10 years on each of Counts I, III, IV, and V, to all run concurrently, with credit for time served.
On June 22, 2010, Christon wrote a pro se letter to the trial court asking to be allowed to appeal his guilty plea. Christon asserted in his letter that his public defender counsel tricked him into pleading to a 10 violent offense, when he thought he was pleading to a 10 non-violent.5 On July 12, 2010, the Honorable Donald L. Deason held a hearing on this motion to withdraw plea of guilty. At the hearing, which was transcribed, the following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: You wrote this letter yourself, Mr. Christon, and I assume you are representing yourself for the purpose of this hearing?
DEFENDANT: Representing myself?
THE COURT: Well, you indicate, in this letter, that Mr. Bedford tricked you into pleading, so I don’t really think that he’s in the position to represent you today.
DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
Although Christon’s appointed counsel remained present during the hearing, he apparently provided no assistance to Christon and only spoke up once.6 At the end of the hearing, the court denied the motion. Christon then filed the current petition for certiorari, which is properly before this Court.
Christon raises the following proposition of error in support of his petition:
I. MR. CHRISTON WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF CONFLICT FREE COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS.
Christon asserts that his right to conflict-free assistance of counsel was violated when the trial court failed to appoint him new counsel on his motion to withdraw his plea, even though he was asserting ineffective assistance and a conflict of interest (that his counsel had tricked him regarding his plea) as the basis for his attempt to withdraw his plea.
In Randall v. State, 1993 OK CR 47, 5-7, 861 P.2d 314, 316, this Court held that a defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and at the evidentiary hearing on such a motion. In Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 5, 902 P.2d 1116, we further held that this right to counsel includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel, which includes the correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest. Id. at 8, 902 P.2d at 1118 (citation omitted).
And an actual conflict of interest exists where the defendant is asserting that his attorney’s ineffectiveness or coercion resulted in an invalid plea—yet this same attorney still represents the defendant.7 Since Carey, this Court has maintained that when a defendant asserts ineffective assistance as the reason that a guilty plea is invalid, the trial court should automatically appoint new conflict-free counsel on the motion to withdraw the plea.
The transcript of the plea withdrawal hearing in this case reveals that the trial court’s failure to appoint new counsel for Christon left him totally without the assistance of counsel. Christon never suggested that he wanted to proceed pro se, never waived his right to the assistance of counsel, and never waived his right to appointed counsel. He was indigent, asserted that he had been tricked by his counsel into pleading guilty to an 85% offense, and should have been appointed new counsel on his motion to withdraw his plea—whether or not his claim of not being properly informed turns out to be true.
Even though defense counsel never asked to withdraw and the record does not contain a request for new counsel, the trial court should have recognized the actual conflict of interest that existed in this case. This Court is not making any finding on the validity of Christon’s attempt to withdraw his plea. We simply find that he was entitled to effective and conflict-free representation on his motion. The trial court is ordered to appoint new, conflict-free counsel to represent Christon on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and on the evidentiary hearing on this motion.
And this case is remanded for a new hearing on this motion.8
Decision
The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel and a new hearing on Christon’s motion to withdraw his plea consistent with this opinion.
Footnotes:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1431
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 §§ 421, 1431
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1713
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1720
- Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1
- Randall v. State, 1993 OK CR 47, 861 P.2d 314
- Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, 902 P.2d 1116
- Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 3-A
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1431 - Burglary in the First Degree
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 421 - Conspiracy
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1713 - Concealing Stolen Property
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1720 - Larceny of an Automobile
- Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 - Possession of CDS (Methamphetamine)
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 - 85% Rule
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:
- Randall v. State, 1993 OK CR 47, III 5-7, 861 P.2d 314, 316
- Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, I 5, 902 P.2d 1116