Rolla Roy Werline, IV v The State Of Oklahoma
C-2018-1040
Filed: Oct. 31, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
# Rolla Roy Werline, IV appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. Conviction and sentence: 20 years in prison and fines for other charges. No one dissented. In this case, Rolla Roy Werline, IV, pleaded guilty to serious charges, including First Degree Manslaughter and Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident. After he was sentenced to 20 years in prison and received a couple of fines, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what it meant. He argued that he had been misled about how serious his punishment could be and that he thought he would receive a lighter sentence. However, the court looked at everything and decided that his plea was made willingly and that he understood the potential consequences. Werline also complained that his sentence was too harsh. He pointed to a statement made by the victim's family during sentencing, suggesting a longer sentence than what he received. The court found that any issues with this statement didn't impact his sentence significantly. In the end, the court denied his appeal, meaning Werline must serve his sentence as decided.
Decision
The Petition for a 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 the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- was there a valid basis for the petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea based on claims of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge regarding the plea process?
- did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea?
- was the sentence imposed by the trial court excessive or shocking to the conscience?
- was the inclusion of a victim impact statement with a sentence recommendation properly addressed in the sentencing?
- did the petitioner waive any arguments related to the Victim Compensation Assessment by not raising them in his motion to withdraw?
Findings
- the court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw guilty plea
- the sentence imposed was not excessive
- the claim regarding the Victim Compensation Assessment was waived
C-2018-1040
Oct. 31, 2019
Rolla Roy Werline, IV
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI
LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Petitioner Rolla Roy Werline, IV, while represented by counsel, entered pleas of guilty to First Degree Manslaughter (Count I) (21 O.S.2011, § 711); Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident (Count II) (47 O.S.2011, § 10-102.1); and Failure to Maintain Insurance (Misdemeanor) (Count III) (47 O.S.2011, § 7-606) in the District Court of Ottawa County, Case No. CF-2017-164. The pleas were accepted by the Honorable Robert G. Haney, District Judge, on April 19, 2018. On June 12, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced in Count I to twenty (20) years imprisonment, and a $1,000.00 fine; five (5) years imprisonment in Count II, all suspended, to run consecutive to Count I; and a $250.00 fine in Count III.
On June 15, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. At a hearing on June 26, 2018, before Judge Haney, the motion was denied. Petitioner now appeals that denial to this Court. Petitioner raises the following propositions of error:
I. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty because the plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered into by Petitioner because he did not understand the consequences of entering into a blind plea.
II. The assessed VCA costs in Count III and the sentence imposed after Petitioner entered his guilty plea are shockingly excessive.
After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we have determined that neither reversal nor modification is required under the law and evidence.
In Proposition I, Petitioner argues his plea was not entered voluntarily claiming he was misadvised about the plea process. Specifically, he contends he was led to believe that he would receive a minimal sentence in exchange for his guilty plea. Further, he argues the record is not clear whether the plea was a blind plea or a negotiated plea and that this confusion resulted in a plea that was not voluntary but was the result of inadvertence and ignorance. This issue was sufficiently raised in the motion to withdraw and addressed by the trial court. Therefore, it has been properly raised on appeal. Our review on appeal is for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the issue; a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, clearly against the logic and effect of the facts.
The burden is on the petitioner to show a defect in the plea process that entitles him to withdraw the plea. When evaluating the validity of a guilty plea, this Court is concerned only with whether or not the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. In examining the voluntariness of the plea, we may look to the entire record, including all pleadings and proceedings in the case. A review of the record in the present case shows a knowing and voluntary plea. Further, the record shows Petitioner understood punishment was to be determined by the trial court and that the court could sentence him anywhere within the statutory range. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw. This proposition is denied.
In Proposition II, Petitioner argues his sentence was excessive. This claim was included in his Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with this Court and therefore has been properly preserved for our review. Initially, Petitioner challenges the victim impact statement read at the sentencing hearing. He argues that it improperly contained a sentence recommendation and resulted in an excessive sentence. Victim impact statements may be presented at the time of sentencing in a non-capital case. The court shall consider those statements among other factors in determining the sentence. The victim impact statement may not contain a sentence recommendation. Here, the victim impact statement written by the family and read by the prosecutor contained a sentence recommendation of 40 years. Any error in admitting this statement was harmless as there is no indication it impacted the sentence imposed. Petitioner was sentenced to twenty (20) years in Count I and five (5) years suspended in Count III.
In cases where sentencing decisions are made by a judge, and not a jury, there is a presumption that the court considered only competent admissible evidence and that the sentencing decision was made in compliance with the law. Based upon the record before us, we find Appellant has failed to rebut the presumption that the trial court considered only competent admissible evidence in its sentencing determination. Petitioner’s sentences are within statutory range and under the facts and circumstances of the case, not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court.
Petitioner next argues the trial court erred in imposing a $250.00 Victim Compensation Assessment in Count III, Failure to Maintain Insurance. This issue was not raised in the motion to withdraw or the cert. petition; therefore, it is waived for our review on appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is denied.
DECISION
The Petition for a 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 the delivery and filing of this decision.
Footnotes:
- Petitioner must serve 85% of his sentence in Count I before becoming eligible for consideration for parole. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1.
- See Rule 4.2(B), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019); Weeks U. State, 2015 OK CR 16, II 27-29, 362 P.3d 650, 657.
- Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, I 5, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142.
- Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, I 29, 152 P.3d 244, 245, overruled on other grounds, State U Vincent 2016 OK CR 7, 371 P3d. 1127.
- Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11, I 21, 422 P.3d 741, 747.
- 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 142A-8.
- Bosse U. Oklahoma, U.S., 137 S.Ct. 1, 2, 196 L.Ed.2d 1 (2016).
- Marshall U. State, 1998 OK CR 30, I 32, 963 P.2d 1, 11; Borden v. State, 1985 OK CR 151, I 9, 710 P.2d 116, 118.
- Beihl U. State, 1988 OK CR 213 I 3, 762 P.2d 976, 977.
- Cipriano U. State, 2001 OK CR 25, I 52, 32 P.3d 869, 880.
- Rule 4.2(B), Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019); Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, II 27-29, 362 P.3d at 657.
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711 (2011) - First Degree Manslaughter
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 10-102.1 (2011) - Leaving the Scene of a Fatality Accident
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 7-606 (2011) - Failure to Maintain Insurance
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (2011) - Parole Eligibility
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 142A-8 (2014) - Victim Impact Statements
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:
- Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, II 27-29, 362 P.3d 650, 657
- Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, I 5, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142
- Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170
- Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, I 29, 152 P.3d 244, 245
- State v. Vincent, 2016 OK CR 7, 371 P.3d 1127
- Elmore v. State, 1981 OK CR 8, I 8, 624 P.2d 78, 80
- Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11, I 21, 422 P.3d 741, 747
- Bosse v. Oklahoma, U.S., 137 S.Ct. 1, 2, 196 L.Ed.2d 1 (2016)
- Marshall v. State, 1998 OK CR 30, I 32, 963 P.2d 1, 11
- Borden v. State, 1985 OK CR 151, I 9, 710 P.2d 116, 118
- Beihl v. State, 1988 OK CR 213, I 3, 762 P.2d 976, 977
- Cipriano v. State, 2001 OK CR 25, I 52, 32 P.3d 869, 880