Blog

C-2018-834

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

Tammera Rachelle Baker v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2018-834

Filed: Jun. 27, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

# Tammera Rachelle Baker appealed her conviction for first degree manslaughter. Conviction and sentence 30 years imprisonment with 10 years suspended and a $1,000 fine. No dissent.

Decision

The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence 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.

Issues

  • Was Ms. Baker's plea of guilty entered knowingly and intelligently?
  • Did Ms. Baker receive ineffective assistance of counsel during her plea proceedings?
  • Is the sentence imposed after Ms. Baker's blind plea shockingly excessive?

Findings

  • The court did not err in denying the request to withdraw the plea due to lack of knowing and intelligent entry.
  • The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was denied due to insufficient evidence of ineffective performance.
  • The sentence was not deemed excessive and was affirmed as within statutory limits.

C-2018-834

Jun. 27, 2019

Tammera Rachelle Baker

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Tammera Rachelle Baker, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of guilty to first degree manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711, in the District Court of Delaware County, Case No. CF-2017-157. The Honorable Robert G. Haney, District Judge, found Petitioner guilty. The Honorable Barry V. Denny, Associate District Judge, later sentenced Appellant to thirty (30) years imprisonment, with ten (10) years suspended, and a $1,000.00 fine.¹ Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. Petitioner now seeks the writ of certiorari in the following propositions of error:

¹ Pursuant to Title 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(3), Petitioner must serve 85% of the sentence before being eligible for consideration for parole.

1. Ms. Baker should be allowed to withdraw her plea of guilty because the plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered into by Petitioner because she believed the court would not sentence her to more than ten years and she relied on misinformation from her attorney regarding witness testimony;
2. Ms. Baker received ineffective assistance of counsel during her plea proceedings;
3. The sentence imposed after Ms. Baker entered her blind plea is shockingly excessive because thirty years was a consequence of improper victim impact statements.

Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction, Weeks U. State, 2015 OK CR 16, ‘I 11, 362 P.3d 650, 654; whether the sentence is excessive, Whitaker U. State, 2015 OK CR 1, I 9, 341 P.3d 87, 90; whether counsel was constitutionally effective, Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, 932 P.2d 22, and whether the State has the power to prosecute the defendant at all, Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, I 12, 362 P.3d at 654.

The Court will not review the merits of an issue not raised in the motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, II 27-29, 362 P.3d at 657; Rule 4.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019). We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion, Carpenter U. State, 1996 OK CR 56, I 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998; unless it involves a question of statutory or constitutional interpretation, which we review de novo. Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, I 16, 362 P.3d at 654.

Neither Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the sentence, nor an inaccurate prediction by counsel of the likely sentence to be imposed on a blind plea, is a sufficient ground for withdrawal of a plea. Lozoya, 1996 OK CR 55, I 44, 932 P.2d at 34; Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, I 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383.

In Proposition One, Petitioner argues that her plea was involuntary because she was led by her attorney to believe that she would receive no more than ten (10) years on her blind plea, and that counsel would present additional witnesses in her favor at sentencing, but did not. A valid 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). The record refutes Petitioner’s attack on the voluntariness of her plea. Proposition One requires no relief.

In Proposition Two, Petitioner alleges that plea and withdrawal counsel were ineffective, and requests an evidentiary hearing to supplement the appellate record. We review these claims under the deficient performance and prejudice test of Strickland U. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We assess the application for evidentiary hearing to determine whether Petitioner has shown clear and convincing evidence of a strong possibility that counsel was ineffective for failing to identify or utilize available evidence. Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b). Petitioner’s submissions do not meet even this preliminary burden. Simpson U. State, 2010 OK CR 6, I 53, 230 P.3d 888, 905-06. Proposition Two, and the application for evidentiary hearing, are denied.

In Proposition Three, Petitioner claims her sentence is excessive. This Court will not disturb a sentence within statutory limits unless, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it shocks the conscience. Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, I 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928. Considering the relevant circumstances, Petitioner’s sentence does not meet that test, and no relief is warranted.

DECISION The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence 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. Pursuant to Title 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(3) Petitioner must serve 85% of the sentence before being eligible for consideration for parole.
  2. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction, Weeks U. State, 2015 OK CR 16, 'I 11, 362 P.3d 650, 654; whether the sentence is excessive, Whitaker U. State, 2015 OK CR 1, I 9, 341 P.3d 87, 90; whether counsel was constitutionally effective, Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, 932 P.2d 22, and whether the State has the power to prosecute the defendant at all, Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, I 12, 362 P.3d at 654.
  3. We review the trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion, Carpenter U. State, 1996 OK CR 56, I 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998; unless it involves a question of statutory or constitutional interpretation, which we review de novo. Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, I 16, 362 P.3d at 654.
  4. Neither Petitioner's dissatisfaction with the sentence, nor an inaccurate prediction by counsel of the likely sentence to be imposed on a blind plea, is a sufficient ground for withdrawal of a plea. Lozoya, 1996 OK CR 55, I 44, 932 P.2d at 34; Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, I 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383.
  5. A valid 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).
  6. We review these claims under the deficient performance and prejudice test of Strickland U. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
  7. Petitioner's submissions do not meet even this preliminary burden. Simpson U. State, 2010 OK CR 6, I 53, 230 P.3d 888, 905-06.
  8. This Court will not disturb a sentence within statutory limits unless, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it shocks the conscience. Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, I 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711 (2011) - First degree manslaughter
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (2015) - Parole eligibility
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 4.2(A) (2019) - Motion to withdraw guilty plea
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.11(B)(3)(b) (2019) - Evidentiary hearing
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2019) - Mandate issuance
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (2015) - 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:

  • Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, I 11, 362 P.3d 650, 654
  • Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, I 9, 341 P.3d 87, 90
  • Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, 932 P.2d 22
  • Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, I 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998
  • Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, I 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383
  • North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
  • Simpson v. State, 2010 OK CR 6, I 53, 230 P.3d 888, 905-06
  • Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18, I 16, 387 P.3d 922, 928

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,