Blog

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ALEXANDER BRANDON HALL, ) ) NOT FOR PUBLICATION Petitioner, ) ) V. ) Case No. C-2011-945 ) THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) FILED ) IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Respondent. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) SEP – 6 2012 SUMMARY OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI MICHAEL S. RICHIE CLERK C. JOHNSON, JUDGE: Petitioner, Alexander Brandon Hall, was charged in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2010-316, with Robbery with a Firearm, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, each After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. On September 12, 2011, Hall entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to the crimes charged. The Honorable William Musseman accepted Hall’s plea and sentenced him to twelve years imprisonment and a $600 fine on each count. 1 The court ordered the counts to run concurrent with each other and with sentence imposed in Case No. CF-2010-287. Hall subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea. His motion was denied after a hearing held on October 13, 2011. Hall appeals this ruling. Hall raises the following propositions of error: 1. Mr. Hall has been subjected to multiple punishments, which requires the dismissal of Count I or Count III. I Robbery with a Firearm is an 85% crime. 2. The trial court erred by accepting a plea of no contest in Count II, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, because the evidence was insufficient to support this charge. 3. Mr. Hall should be allowed to withdraw his pleas of guilty because the pleas were not knowingly and intelligently entered into by Hall; instead, they were with inadvertence and by mistake. After thorough consideration of the propositions, and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Hall’s Motion to Withdraw. However, we also reverse Count III with instructions to dismiss. As to Proposition I, we find that the act which formed the basis for the crime of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon was not separate and distinct from, but was included within, the same general act which formed the basis for the crime of Robbery with a Firearm. Accordingly, Hall’s conviction on Count III, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, must be reversed with instructions to dismiss as this Section 11 violation was plain error. 21 O.S.2001, § 11. See also Jones U. State, 2006 OK CR 5, I 63, 128 P.3d 521, 543; Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, 9 4, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142. In Proposition II, we find that the Information and the probable cause affidavit provided a sufficient factual basis upon which the district court could accept Hall’s nolo contendere plea to the crime of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 4, 990 P.2d 894, 896- 97. The evidence was sufficient to support this charge. There was no plain error here. 2 In Proposition III, we note that based upon the answers Hall gave at the plea hearing and in his Plea of Guilty Summary of Facts form, the district court found that Hall’s nolo contendere plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in SO ruling. Coyle v. State, 1985 OK CR 121, T 5, 706 P.2d 547, 548. DECISION The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. Count III is REVERSED with instructions to DISMISS. 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. AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY THE HONORABLE WILLIAM MUSSEMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES AT HEARING APPEARANCES ON APPEAL ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW KATRINA CONRAD-LEGLER STEPHEN LEE P.O. BOX 926 423 SOUTH BOULDER NORMAN, OK 73070 TULSA, OK 74119 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT E. SCOTT PRUITT STUART ERICSON ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA ASSISTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY JAY SCHNIEDERJAN 500 SOUTH DENVER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TULSA, OK 74013 313 N.E. 21 st ST. ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OPINION BY C. JOHNSON, J. A. JOHNSON, P.J.: CONCUR LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN PART/DISSENT IN PART SMITH, J.: CONCUR 3

Click Here To Download PDF