Darrell Ray Beauchamp v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2011-469

Filed: Feb. 13, 2013

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Darrell Ray Beauchamp

Summary

Darrell Ray Beauchamp appealed his conviction for Feloniously Pointing a Weapon and Possession of a Firearm by a Felon. Conviction and sentence were 25 years and a $500 fine for the first charge, and 15 years and a $500 fine for the second charge, to be served one after the other. The court found that Beauchamp did not fully understand his plea agreement and decided that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. Judge C. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to allow Beauchamp to withdraw his plea of guilty and proceed to trial after reassignment to a different district judge. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was Beauchamp's plea knowing and voluntary?
• Did conflict counsel provide ineffective assistance of counsel?

Findings

• The court erred in denying Beauchamp's motion to withdraw his plea.
• Beauchamp's plea was not knowing and voluntary.
• Beauchamp is granted permission to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.
• The case will be reassigned to another district judge.

C-2011-469

Feb. 13, 2013

Darrell Ray Beauchamp

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

GRANTING CERTIORARI

Petitioner Darrell Ray Beauchamp entered a plea of guilty under North Carolina v. Alford1 in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2010-2218, to Count 1 – Feloniously Pointing a Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1289.16 and Count 2 – Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2009, § 1283. The Honorable Kurt G. Glassco accepted his plea and sentenced Beauchamp to twenty-five years imprisonment and a $500 fine on Count 1 and fifteen years imprisonment and a $500 fine on Count 2, to be served consecutively. Beauchamp filed a timely Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. The district court appointed Beauchamp separate, conflict-free counsel, held the prescribed hearing, and denied Beauchamp’s motion. Beauchamp appeals the order denying his motion and petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari allowing him to either withdraw his plea and proceed to trial or to modify his sentence. Beauchamp raises the following issues: (1) whether his plea was knowing and voluntary; and (2) whether conflict counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

We grant certiorari and remand this matter to the district court to allow Beauchamp to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. We further find this case should be reassigned to another district judge. This matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Beauchamp’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The evidence presented not only concerned counsel’s performance but the validity of the plea. The evidence presented supports a finding that Beauchamp entered his plea based upon his plea counsel’s representation that counsel had spoken to the trial judge and the judge had said that he would sentence Beauchamp to a more favorable sentence than the State’s offer and ultimately more favorable than that which the trial judge imposed. Plea counsel’s representation that the judge was willing to impose a lower sentence than the State’s offer significantly influenced Beauchamp’s decision to enter a blind plea and reject the State’s offer. Where it reasonably appears that a plea of guilty was influenced by persons in apparent authority which has led a defendant to believe that by entering such a plea his punishment would be mitigated, the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his plea. See e.g., Gardner v. Oklahoma City, 1968 OK CR 11, I 5, 437 P.2d 279, 281. On the record before us, we find the trial court abused its discretion2 in denying Beauchamp’s motion to withdraw plea.2 See Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, I 18, 152 P.3d 244, 251.

DECISION

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to allow Beauchamp to withdraw his plea of guilty and proceed to trial after reassignment to a different district judge. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

[a href=https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2011-469_1745473182.pdf target=_blank]Click Here To Download PDF[/a]

Footnotes:

1. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (provides for the entry of a plea of guilty while maintaining innocence).
2. Gardner v. Oklahoma City, 1968 OK CR 11, ¶ 5, 437 P.2d 279, 281.
3. Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, ¶ 18, 152 P.3d 244, 251.
4. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1289.16
5. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1289.16 (2001) - Feloniously Pointing a Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283 (2009) - Felon in Possession of a Firearm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2013) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

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:

• North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)
• Gardner v. Oklahoma City, 1968 OK CR 11, I 5, 437 P.2d 279, 281
• Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, "I 18, 152 P.3d 244, 251