Heath Justin Wright v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2017-1311

Filed: Oct. 4, 2018

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Heath Justin Wright

Summary

Heath Justin Wright appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. His conviction and sentence were for twenty-five years on each charge. Judge Kessinger dissented. Wright initially entered a guilty plea without a lawyer and was supposed to complete a drug court program to avoid prison time. However, he got kicked out of the program and got the long sentence. He later tried to say his lawyer didn't help him properly, which may have affected his decision to plead guilty. The court agreed that he had a valid point about not being told the risks of representing himself. They decided he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and have a trial instead.

Decision

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the District Court of Pontotoc County to allow Wright to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial on all counts. Wright's appeal in Case No. F-2017-1304 is DENIED as MOOT. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there ineffective assistance of counsel that requires relief?
• Did the waiver of counsel adequately inform Wright of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation?
• Was Wright entitled to withdraw his guilty plea based on the inadequacy of his waiver of counsel?

Findings

• the court granted the writ of certiorari
• the case is remanded to allow Wright to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial on all counts
• Wright's appeal in Case No. F-2017-1304 is denied as moot

C-2017-1311

Oct. 4, 2018

Heath Justin Wright

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

GRANTING CERTIORARI

ROWLAND, JUDGE: Petitioner/Appellant Heath Justin Wright entered, without counsel, a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of Pontotoc County, Case No. CF-2015-43, to Second Degree Burglary (Count 1) in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1435, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property (Count 2) in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1713 and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 3) in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402, each after previous conviction of two felonies. The Honorable Gregory D. Pollard accepted Wright’s plea and, pursuant to the plea agreement, placed him in the Pontotoc County Drug Court. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Wright’s successful completion of the drug court program would result in the dismissal of his charges and expungement of his record while failure would result in the imposition of a twenty-five year sentence on each count to be served concurrently.

Wright, by counsel, moved to withdraw his plea after the State filed an application to terminate him from the drug court program and enforce the terms of the plea agreement. The Honorable C. Steven Kessinger held the required hearing and denied Wright’s motion. The district court terminated Wright from the drug court program and sentenced him pursuant to the plea agreement to twenty-five years on each count. Wright appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw plea, raising one issue. (1) whether ineffective assistance of counsel requires relief. We find relief is required and grant the writ of certiorari. Granting the writ of certiorari in this case renders moot Wright’s claim in his drug court appeal in Case No. F-2017-1304.

1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Wright claims he is entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The burden is on Wright to prove (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance resulted in prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Wiley v. State, 2008 OK CR 30, ¶ 4, 199 P.3d 877, 878. He must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial or that the outcome of the plea process was otherwise affected. Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 27, 932 P.2d 22, 31.

Wright entered his plea for drug court without the benefit of counsel. He signed a Waiver of Counsel and affirmed that waiver during the plea colloquy. Neither in the written waiver nor during the plea colloquy was Wright advised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Wright did not challenge the adequacy of his waiver of counsel in his motion to withdraw or during the hearing on that motion. Defense counsel renewed Wright’s motion to withdraw after the prescribed hearing. The district court denied both of Wright’s motions to withdraw his plea.

Wright contends that the attorney he retained to pursue withdrawing his guilty plea forfeited his meritorious claim challenging the adequacy of his waiver of counsel resulting in prejudice. At this Court’s direction, the State responded, conceding error and agreeing that the case must be remanded to the district court with instructions to permit Wright to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial on all counts. Wright’s waiver of counsel was deficient because he was not advised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. See Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8, ¶ 29, 419 P.3d 283, 292. Had counsel challenged the adequacy of Wright’s waiver of counsel, the district court would have granted Wright’s application to withdraw plea and remanded the matter for trial. Because Wright has satisfied both of the prongs of the Strickland test, we grant the writ and remand the matter with instructions to allow Wright to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.

DECISION

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the District Court of Pontotoc County to allow Wright to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial on all counts. Wright’s appeal in Case No. F-2017-1304 is DENIED as MOOT. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 18, App. (2018), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.

LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur
LEWIS, V.P.J.: Concur
HUDSON, J.: Concur
KUEHN, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Oklahoma Stat. tit. 21 § 1435
2. Oklahoma Stat. tit. 21 § 1713
3. Oklahoma Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402
4. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
5. Wiley v. State, 2008 OK CR 30, ¶ 4, 199 P.3d 877, 878
6. Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 27, 932 P.2d 22, 31
7. Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8, ¶ 29, 419 P.3d 283, 292
8. Rule 3.3(D), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018)
9. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 18, App. (2018)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1435 (2011) - Second Degree Burglary
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1713 (2011) - Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 (2012) - Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance

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:

• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
• Wiley v. State, 2008 OK CR 30, I 4, 199 P.3d 877, 878
• Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, I 27, 932 P.2d 22, 31
• Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8, I 29, 419 P.3d 283, 292