Hollis Michael Anson v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2011-1119
Filed: Sep. 5, 2012
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Hollis Michael Anson
Summary
Hollis Michael Anson appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance. His conviction resulted in a sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment. Justice Lumpkin 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. (2012), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there a conflict of interest that prevented Mr. Anson from receiving effective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea?
- Did the trial court fail to establish an adequate factual basis for Mr. Anson's guilty plea?
- Was Mr. Anson's sentence excessively harsh?
Findings
- the court erred in denying Petitioner effective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea
- the trial court failed to establish an adequate factual basis for the offense
- the sentence was not addressed as the case was remanded for a proper hearing
C-2011-1119
Sep. 5, 2012
Hollis Michael Anson
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
GRANTING CERTIORARI
C. JOHNSON, JUDGE: Petitioner, Hollis Michael Anson, was charged in Osage County District Court with Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance in Case No. CF-2010-291. Petitioner entered a blind plea of guilty to the charge and was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. 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. Counsel’s conflict of interest prevented Mr. Anson from receiving effective assistance of counsel at the Hearing on the Motion to Withdraw Plea.
2. Mr. Anson’s plea of guilty is invalid because the trial court failed to establish an adequate factual basis for the offense.
3. Mr. Anson received an excessive sentence.
After thorough consideration of the propositions, and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and Petitioner’s brief, 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. Petitioner’s attorney at the hearing on the motion to withdraw was the same attorney who had explained to him the Summary of Facts Form and who had represented him at sentencing. 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.
The transcript of the hearing on the motion to withdraw reflects that defense counsel did little more than state Petitioner’s reason for wanting to withdraw his plea, which was that he believed that if a Presentence Investigation was ordered, it would be a controlling factor at sentencing. Defense counsel stated:
Well, Your Honor, I think it all hinges on ‘knowingly’; did this Defendant knowingly enter that plea. And what the Defendant is telling me in certain aspects, yes, I know I was entering a blind plea, and I know that that means that the outcome is going to be set by the Court. But what he’s saying is, either he doesn’t remember being told or he didn’t comprehend that a Presentence Investigation is not the controlling criteria, that that can be – – a judge looks at that, the judge can hang his hat on that if he wants to, but he doesn’t have to. And that’s what he did not understand.
Although the State had subpoenaed defense counsel to testify at the hearing on the motion to withdraw, when defense counsel pointed out that he could not be a witness and cross-examine himself, the State withdrew the subpoena. As a result, no witnesses were called by either the State or the defense. Defense counsel did not even call Petitioner to testify about his understanding of the significance of the Presentence Investigation Report. While defense counsel stated Petitioner’s position at the hearing on the motion to withdraw, he did not advocate the same. As a result, Petitioner was effectively left without any assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw, presumably in part because counsel could not have rendered effective assistance at this hearing without calling pointed attention to his alleged ineffective assistance in advising Petitioner about entering his plea. 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. (2012), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
APPEARANCES AT PLEA
CINDY BROWN DANNER
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
GLENN E. DAVIS
117 WEST FIFTH STREET, STE. 402
BARTLESVILLE, OK 74003
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
KYLE ALDERSON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
628 1/2 KIHEKAH ST.
PAWHUSKA, OK 74056
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE
OPINION BY C. JOHNSON, J.
A. JOHNSON, P.J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR
SMITH, J.: CONCUR
Footnotes:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18.
- Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, ¶ 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118.
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2012).
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
No Oklahoma statutes found.
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:
No case citations found.