Danielle Marie Harris v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2017-458

Filed: Apr. 9, 2018

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Danielle Marie Harris

Summary

Danielle Marie Harris appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Her conviction and sentence included five years for meth and one year for paraphernalia, both suspended and served at the same time. A judge denied her request to withdraw her guilty plea, so she appealed. The court decided that Harris did not get a fair hearing on her request. They said that even though the judge had concerns about not knowing the reasons for her request, she had provided enough detail in her letter asking to withdraw her plea. The court wants to give her a chance to explain her reasons in a proper hearing. Judge Hudson disagreed and felt that the district court should have the power to decide if a hearing was necessary based on the details provided. He wrote a dissenting opinion, expressing concern about the impact of this decision on similar cases in the future.

Decision

Certiorari is GRANTED. The District Court's denial of Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw Plea is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 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 a denial of Petitioner's right to an evidentiary hearing on her application to withdraw her plea?
• Did the trial court err by terminating the hearing based on the lack of detail in the motions to withdraw plea?
• Was the Petitioner’s pro se letter sufficient to set forth the grounds for withdrawing her plea as required by Rule 4.2(A)?
• Is the trial court's decision to deny a motion to withdraw plea discretionary, while the requirement to hold a hearing on the matter is not?

Findings

• the court erred
• the denial of Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw Plea is vacated
• the case is remanded for further proceedings

C-2017-458

Apr. 9, 2018

Danielle Marie Harris

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

KUEHN, JUDGE: On March 23, 2017, Petitioner entered a negotiated plea of guilty in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2017-260 to Count 1: Possession of Methamphetamine (63 O.S.2011, § 2-402) and Count 2: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (63 O.S.2011, § 2-405). Petitioner was sentenced, pursuant to the agreement, to five years on Count 1, and one year on Count 2, with both terms suspended and to be served concurrently with each other. On March 28, 2017, Petitioner sent a pro se letter to the court, asking to withdraw her plea. Petitioner’s counsel followed up with a formal motion to withdraw guilty plea on March 29. A second motion to withdraw was filed by different appointed counsel on March 30. On April 21, 2017, the Honorable Larry D. Shaw, Special Judge, denied Petitioner’s request to withdraw her pleas. She timely perfected an appeal to this Court; at this Court’s direction, the State filed a response on April 13, 2018. Petitioner raises one proposition of error in support of her petition:

PROPOSITION. THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING EFFECTIVELY DENIED Ms. HARRIS HER RIGHT TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HER APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA AND THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR A PROPER HEARING.

After review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we grant certiorari and remand for further proceedings. A defendant seeking to withdraw her guilty plea must, within ten days of sentencing, file a motion setting forth in detail the grounds for the withdrawal of the plea and requesting an evidentiary hearing in the trial court. Rule 4.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S., Ch. 18, App. (2018). The district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Rule 4.2(B), id. Petitioner initiated the plea-withdrawal process by sending a pro se letter to the court, explaining why she wished to withdraw her pleas. Her attorneys subsequently filed two motions to withdraw plea, but neither specified the grounds for the request. Although a hearing was scheduled, the district court abruptly terminated it for Petitioner’s failure to specify the basis of her challenge in the motions to withdraw. The court concluded that it would not be fair to hold a hearing without giving the State (and the court itself) advance notice of the specifics of Petitioner’s complaint. While the district court’s concerns are well-founded, we believe Petitioner’s pro se request set forth, in sufficient detail, the grounds for withdrawing her plea as required by Rule 4.2(A). In any event, the termination of the hearing was not an appropriate remedy, since a hearing on the motion was not discretionary. Anderson U. State, 2018 OK CR 13, 99 3-4, P.3d . Whether to grant a motion to withdraw plea is within the trial court’s discretion. Allen U. State, 1991 OK CR 35, I 15, 821 P.2d 371, 375. But whether to hold a hearing on the matter is not.

DECISION

Certiorari is GRANTED. The District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw Plea is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 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.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE LARRY D. SHAW, SPECIAL JUDGE

ATTORNEYS AT HEARING ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA
PIERCE WINTERS
GINA K. WALKER
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 611
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

KELLY COLLINS
MIKE HUNTER
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.
320 ROBERT S. KERR, STE. 505
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102

COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
MATTHEW D. HAIRE
ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 NE 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

OPINION BY KUEHN, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR
HUDSON, J.: DISSENT
ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR

HUDSON, J., DISSENTING
Today’s decision lives up to the promise of Anderson v. State, 2018 OK CR 13, __P.3d__, that an evidentiary hearing must be held for any and all applications to withdraw a guilty plea, no matter how incoherent or groundless. I continue to dissent to this approach for the reasons previously articulated in my dissent in Anderson. Happily, the majority confirms that the decision whether to grant or deny an application to withdraw a plea remains within the district courts’ discretion. However, if we continue on this path, who’s to say even this well-established rule can survive? Today’s decision, which faithfully applies Anderson, shows that we have strayed from anything resembling a rules-based regime in dealing with these applications. The majority does little more here than require an evidentiary hearing in order that Petitioner may discover the grounds for challenging her plea. This approach should be no surprise after Anderson which itself required an evidentiary hearing for a defendant who did not request one and who alleged without detail in the written application to withdraw simply that [h]e did not understand the nature and consequences of his plea[.] Anderson, 2018 OK CR 13, 111 1, 8 (Hudson, J., dissenting). In the present case, we remand for an evidentiary hearing where the petitioner submitted a disjointed letter to the magistrate seeking to withdraw her plea that was followed up by two formal motions to withdraw, each filed by counsel, which provided no detail whatsoever for this request. This despite the requirement in Rule 4.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), that a defendant set[ ] forth in detail the grounds for the withdrawal of the plea and request [] an evidentiary hearing in the trial court. Here, the magistrate quite understandably dismissed the application and there was no abuse of discretion. If the defendant (or counsel) cannot set forth with detail a legally cognizable reason in the written application to withdraw plea, why should the lower court be required to hold a hearing on the request to withdraw plea? By stripping the district courts of discretion to make even the most basic procedural decisions concerning these applications-like whether the petitioner’s ground for relief is sufficiently specific to state a claim-the majority suggests that guilty pleas are something merely to be tolerated but rarely trusted. Such a sentiment represents a seismic shift in our approach to applications to withdraw guilty pleas where [t]he only concern is whether the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. Fields U. State, 1996 OK CR 35, IT 38, 923 P.2d 624, 631. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970) (the standard for determining the validity of guilty pleas was and remains whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among alternative courses of action open to the defendant.). I oppose the majority’s approach to these cases and therefore dissent.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.2011, § 2-402
2. 63 O.S.2011, § 2-405
3. Rule 4.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S., Ch. 18, App. (2018)
4. Rule 4.2(B), id.
5. Anderson v. State, 2018 OK CR 13, __P.3d__
6. Allen v. State, 1991 OK CR 35, 15, 821 P.2d 371, 375
7. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018)
8. Fields v. State, 1996 OK CR 35, ¶ 38, 923 P.2d 624, 631
9. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 - Possession of Methamphetamine
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-405 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 4.2(A) - Motion to Withdraw Plea
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 4.2(B) - Evidentiary Hearing Requirement
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Mandate Issuance
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22, Ch. 18, App. - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Error in Denial of Hearing
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.1 - Pleas Must Be Voluntary and Intelligent

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:

• Anderson v. State, 2018 OK CR 13, 99 3-4, P.3d
• Allen v. State, 1991 OK CR 35, "I 15, 821 P.2d 371, 375
• Fields v. State, 1996 OK CR 35, IT 38, 923 P.2d 624, 631
• North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162