Ronald Franz v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2013-1046

Filed: Jul. 18, 2014

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Ronald Franz

Summary

Ronald Frantz appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Shooting with Intent to Kill. His conviction and sentence were twenty-two and one half years in prison, with the first twenty years of the sentence to be served. A judge and an attorney worked on his case, but Frantz wanted to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not understand the situation during his plea and sentencing. He felt he didn't have good legal help because the same lawyer represented him and failed to address his concerns. The court agreed and decided to have a new hearing with a different lawyer to make sure Frantz got a fair chance. Frantz's appeal was successful, and the case was sent back to the lower court for this new hearing. C. Johnson wrote the opinion, and none of the other judges disagreed.

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. (2014), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in not allowing Mr. Frantz to withdraw his no contest plea due to a lack of understanding of the roles of the prosecutor and judge during the plea process?
• Did the sentence imposed constitute a shockingly excessive punishment?
• Did the trial court err in not permitting Mr. Frantz's plea attorney to withdraw and failing to appoint new counsel for the motion to withdraw, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel?
• Was relief necessary due to the trial court's failure to confirm Mr. Frantz's competency to enter the Alford plea?

Findings

• the court erred in denying Frantz's motion to withdraw his plea without a proper hearing
• the sentence imposed was not shockingly excessive
• the court erred in not allowing Frantz's plea attorney to withdraw, resulting in a conflict of interest
• the court failed to determine with certainty Frantz's competence to enter the plea

C-2013-1046

Jul. 18, 2014

Ronald Franz

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

GRANTING CERTIORARI

C. JOHNSON, JUDGE:
Petitioner, Ronald Franz, entered a plea of nolo contendere in Murray County District Court, Case No. CF-2012-26, to the crime of Accessory After the Fact to Shooting with Intent to Kill. Frantz was sentenced to twenty-two and one half years imprisonment with all but the first twenty years suspended.

On October 15, 2013, Frantz filed an application to withdraw his nolo contendere plea. A hearing was held on Frantz’s application on October 24, 2013, and at the conclusion of this hearing the district court denied Frantz’s motion to withdraw. Frantz appeals this ruling to this Court. Frantz raises the following propositions of error:

1. The trial court abused its discretion in not allowing Mr. Frantz to withdraw his no contest plea when it became clear that Mr. Frantz had not understood the role of the prosecutor and judge at the sentencing hearing in the plea process.
2. The sentence imposed was shockingly excessive.
3. The trial court erred in not allowing Mr. Frantz’s plea attorney to withdraw and in not appointing new counsel to litigate the motion to withdraw plea, resulting in denial of Mr. Frantz’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
4. Relief is required by the trial court’s failure to determine with certainty whether Frantz was competent to enter the Alford plea.

After thorough consideration of the propositions and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and Frantz’s brief, we remand this case to the district court for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw.

Frantz 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 whose counsel, he alleged in his application to withdraw plea, had been constitutionally ineffective. Although Frantz 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. Frantz was represented at the hearing on the motion to withdraw by the same attorney who had represented him at the plea and sentencing hearings.

The transcript of the hearing held on October 24, 2013 reflects that defense counsel did not call Frantz or any other witness to testify at the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea. Counsel did not address Frantz’s assertion that he had misinformed Frantz by misrepresenting the agreement about what would happen at the sentencing hearing. Frantz was effectively without 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 Frantz about entering his plea. See Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, IT 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118. Thus, this case must be remanded to the district court for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw in which Frantz 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. (2014), 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

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL WITHDRAWAL HEARING
D. SCOTT COLBERT
P.O. BOX 773
SULPHUR, OK 73086
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

JOHN O. WALTON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MURRAY COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SULPHUR, OK 73086
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY C. JOHNSON, J.

LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR
SMITH, V.P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1051
2. Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, IT 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118
3. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2014)

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:

• Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, I 10, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118