Thomas Samuel Hanks v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2015-514

Filed: Jan. 27, 2016

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Thomas Samuel Hanks appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse and Malicious Injury to Property. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the court, but the case was sent back to the lower court to determine if Hanks was mentally ill and should not be charged incarceration costs. Johnson, J. dissented.

Decision

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the District Court of Canadian County for a determination under 22 O.S.2011, § 979a(A) of whether Hanks is a mentally ill person as defined by Section 43A O.S. 1-103 of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2016), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• whether his guilty pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered
• whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel
• whether the trial court abused its discretion by assessing incarceration costs against him in violation of Oklahoma law

Findings

• The court did not err; Hanks' guilty pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.
• The court rejected Hanks' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• The case is remanded to the District Court of Canadian County for a determination of Hanks' mental illness status under 22 O.S.2011, § 979a(A).

C-2015-514

Jan. 27, 2016

Thomas Samuel Hanks

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

DENYING CERTIORARI

JOHNSON, JUDGE: Petitioner Thomas Samuel Hanks entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of Canadian County, Case No. CM-2015-44, to Domestic Abuse (Counts 1 and 2), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C) and Malicious Injury to Property (Count 3), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1760(A)(1). The Honorable Jack D. McCurdy, II accepted Hanks’ plea and sentenced him according to the plea agreement to three months in the county jail on Count 1, and one year suspended on each of Counts 2 and 3. Sentences on all counts were ordered to be served consecutively. Hanks was fined $50.00 on each Count and ordered to pay numerous costs and fees. Hanks filed an application to withdraw guilty plea which was denied following a hearing on May 27, 2015. Hanks appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw plea raising the following issues: (1) whether his guilty pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered; (2) whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by assessing incarceration costs against him in violation of Oklahoma law. We find reversal is not required and affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court.

1. Hanks argues that the record does not support the district court’s conclusion at hearing on the motion to withdraw that his mental illness did not render him incompetent to enter his plea. The record is replete with evidence that Hanks understood the nature and consequences of his guilty plea at the time that he entered the plea and that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hanks’ motion to withdraw plea. Fields v. State, 1996 OK CR 35, 138, 923 P.2d 624, 631-32.

2. We reject Hanks’ claim that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea process. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Head v. State, 2006 OK CR 44, 23, 146 P.3d 1141, 1148.

3. The Judgment and Sentence shows that the district court assessed numerous fees and costs including $1,142.00 to the County Sheriff and $108.00 in DA Inmate Jail Fees. Hanks complains on appeal that because of his diagnosed mental illness, these costs were assessed in violation of 22 O.S.2011, § 979a(A). Section 979a(A) provides that, [t]he court shall order the defendant to reimburse all actual costs of incarceration, upon conviction or upon entry of a deferred judgment and sentence unless the defendant is a mentally ill person as defined by Section 1-103 of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes. Under the circumstances of this case, in which Hanks reported having been diagnosed as bipolar, he was entitled to a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person as defined by 43A O.S.2011, § 1-103. If so, he is exempt from the imposition of jail incarceration costs. The case is remanded to the District Court of Canadian County to make such a determination.

DECISION
The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the District Court of Canadian County for a determination under 22 O.S.2011, § 979a(A) of whether Hanks is a mentally ill person as defined by Section 43A O.S. 1-103 of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2016), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C)
2. 21 O.S.2011, § 1760(A)(1)
3. Fields v. State, 1996 OK CR 35, ¶ 38, 923 P.2d 624, 631-32
4. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
5. Head v. State, 2006 OK CR 44, ¶ 23, 146 P.3d 1141, 1148
6. 22 O.S.2011, § 979a(A)
7. 43A O.S.2011, § 1-103

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(C) (2014) - Domestic Abuse
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1760(A)(1) (2011) - Malicious Injury to Property
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 979a(A) (2011) - Costs of Incarceration
• Okla. Stat. tit. 43A § 1-103 (2011) - Definition of Mentally Ill Person

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:

• Fields v. State, 1996 OK CR 35, I 38, 923 P.2d 624, 631-32
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
• Head v. State, 2006 OK CR 44, I 23, 146 P.3d 1141, 1148