Larado James Smith v State Of Oklahoma

C-2018-1024

Filed: Jul. 18, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Larado James Smith appealed his conviction for six counts of Second Degree Rape and three counts of Forcible Sodomy. Conviction and sentence: fifteen years in prison and a $300 fine for each count, running at the same time. Judge Ludi Leitch had denied his request to withdraw his guilty plea.

Decision

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Issues

• Was there an error in the trial court's denial of the request to withdraw the guilty plea?
• Did the petitioner demonstrate that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily?
• Was there any coercion or duress affecting the petitioner's decision to plead guilty?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea based on the circumstances presented?

Findings

• the trial court did not err in denying the request to withdraw the plea
• the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently
• the petitioner failed to show a defect in the plea process
• the official judgment and sentence of the District Court is affirmed

C-2018-1024

Jul. 18, 2019

Larado James Smith

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI

HUDSON, JUDGE: Petitioner, Larado James Smith, entered a negotiated plea of guilty in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-2550 before the Honorable Deborah Ludi Leitch, Special Judge, to six counts of Second Degree Rape (Counts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1114(B); and three counts of Forcible Sodomy (Counts 13-15), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 888(A). In accordance with the plea agreement, Judge Leitch sentenced Petitioner to fifteen years^1 imprisonment and a $300.00 fine on each count, with all sentences to run concurrently and credit for time served.^2 On August 27, 2018, Petitioner, through plea counsel, filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Conflict counsel was subsequently appointed and a hearing on Petitioner’s motion was held on September 24, 2018. After hearing testimony from Petitioner and plea counsel, Judge Leitch denied Petitioner’s motion to withdraw his plea. Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari alleging the following proposition of error:

I. BECAUSE PETITIONER OFFERED VALID REASONS FOR WITHDRAWING HIS PLEAS, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HIS REQUEST TO DO SO.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and Petitioner’s brief, we find that no relief is required under the law and evidence. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction. Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, ¶ 4, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142. This Court reviews the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 5, 220 P.3d at 1142; Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998. “An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the matter at issue[;]” a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, clearly against the logic and effect of the facts. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170. The burden is on the petitioner to show a defect in the plea process that entitles him to withdraw the plea. See Elmore v. State, 1981 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, 624 P.2d 78, 80. We examine the entire record before us on appeal to determine the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea. Fields v. State, 1996 OK CR 35, ¶ 28, 923 P.2d 624, 630. The standard for determining the validity of a plea is “whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970); Hopkins v. State, 1988 OK CR 257, ¶ 2, 764 P.2d 215, 216. When a defendant claims that his plea was entered through inadvertence, ignorance, influence or without deliberation, he has the burden of showing that the plea was entered as a result of one of these reasons^3 and that there is a defense that should be presented to the jury. Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383.

In his sole proposition of error, Petitioner contends his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. In support of this contention, Petitioner argues his plea resulted from plea counsel’s “lack of advocacy”^3 and pressure to plead. He further asserts that the circumstances surrounding his incarceration caused him undue stress and pressure to plead guilty. The district court considered and rejected each of these allegations at Petitioner’s hearing on his motion to withdraw. The record on appeal contradicts Petitioner’s claim that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The record demonstrates that Petitioner understood the nature and consequences of entering his plea, and that his plea was voluntarily entered. This is not a case where Petitioner entered his plea through inadvertence, ignorance or without deliberation. See Estell, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d at 1383. Moreover, the district court took great care to ensure that Petitioner’s decision to plead guilty was made voluntarily, and not as a result of coercion or duress. Petitioner made a strategic decision to accept the State’s plea offer and enter a guilty plea. Based on the totality of the record, Petitioner’s plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to him. See Hopkins, 1988 OK CR 257, ¶¶ 2-3, 764 P.2d at 216. Petitioner has failed to present this Court with a compelling reason—factual or legal—to find the court abused its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s request to withdraw his plea. See Neloms, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.3d at 170. Relief for Petitioner’s sole proposition of error is denied.

DECISION

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. 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. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. In violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1114(B); and three counts of Forcible Sodomy (Counts 13-15), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 888(A).
2. Under 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(15), Smith must serve a minimum of 85% of his sentence before he is eligible for parole.
3. See Elmore U. State, 1981 OK CR 8, II 8, 624 P.2d 78, 80.
4. See Fields U. State, 1996 OK CR 35, I 28, 923 P.2d 624, 630.
5. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970); Hopkins U. State, 1988 OK CR 257, I 2, 764 P.2d 215, 216.
6. See Estell U. State, 1988 OK CR 287, I 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383.
7. See Hopkins, 1988 OK CR 257, II 2-3, 764 P.2d at 216.
8. See Neloms, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d at 170.
9. Kirkwood v. State, 2018 OK CR 9, I 3, n.2, 421 P.3d 314, 316, n.2;

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1114(B) - Second Degree Rape
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 888(A) - Forcible Sodomy
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1(15) - Parole Eligibility

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:

• Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, I 4, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142.
• Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, I 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998.
• Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170.
• Elmore v. State, 1981 OK CR 8, II 8, 624 P.2d 78, 80.
• Fields v. State, 1996 OK CR 35, I 28, 923 P.2d 624, 630.
• North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).
• Hopkins v. State, 1988 OK CR 257, I 2, 764 P.2d 215, 216.
• Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, I 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383.
• Kirkwood v. State, 2018 OK CR 9, I 3, n.2, 421 P.3d 314, 316, n.2.