James Robert Brown v State Of Oklahoma

C-2019-132

Filed: Oct. 31, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

# James Robert Brown appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. Conviction and sentence six years imprisonment. None dissented.

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.

Issues

• Was there a lack of access to discovery materials that prevented the petitioner from knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty?
• Did the petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to provide discovery materials prior to entering his plea?

Findings

• The court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
• The evidence was sufficient to support the voluntary and intelligent nature of the plea.
• The court did not err in finding that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
• The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.
• The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

---

C-2019-132

Oct. 31, 2019

James Robert Brown

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI

HUDSON, JUDGE: Petitioner, James Robert Brown, was charged in Garfield County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-496, with Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(D)(1), After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. Brown, represented by court-appointed counsel, entered a negotiated guilty plea to the charge on December 17, 2018, before the Honorable Paul K. Woodward, District Judge. In accordance with the plea agreement, Judge Woodward sentenced Brown to six years imprisonment. Brown was additionally given credit for time served and ordered to pay various fees and costs.

Brown subsequently sent a letter to the court seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. The document was filed in the District Court on January 9, 2019, and accepted as a pro se motion to withdraw plea. 1 Conflict counsel was subsequently appointed and a hearing on Brown’s motion was held on February 7, 2019. After hearing testimony from Brown and plea counsel, Judge Woodward denied Brown’s motion to withdraw his plea. Brown now seeks a writ of certiorari alleging the following propositions of error:

I. BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE DISCOVERY MATERIALS PRIOR TO ENTERING HIS PLEA, PETITIONER COULD NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY PLEAD GUILTY; and

II. PETITIONER RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF [PLEA] COUNSEL.

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. 1 Brown’s letter was inadvertently sent to Judge Woodward’s chambers, which delayed the filing of Brown’s pro se motion. Giving Brown “the benefit of the doubt,” Judge Woodward ruled Brown’s pro se motion was timely filed. 2 Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, I 4, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142. This Court reviews the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion. Lewis, 2009 OK CR 30, IT 5, 220 P.3d at 1142; Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, I 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 issue[;]” a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, clearly against the logic and effect of the facts. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 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, I 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, I 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 alternative courses of action open to the defendant. North Carolina U. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970); Hopkins U. State, 1988 OK CR 257, IT 2, 764 P.2d 215, 216. When a defendant claims that their plea was entered through 3 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 and that there is a defense that should be presented to the jury. Estell U. State, 1988 OK CR 287, I 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383.

Proposition I. The record contradicts Brown’s claim that he did not sufficiently understand the State’s case against him when he entered his plea. The record shows Brown’s desire to obtain a copy of the discovery materials following his guilty plea was a separate issue from his decision to enter a guilty plea. Brown declined plea counsel’s invitation to terminate his plea hearing until the requested materials were provided and proceeded voluntarily with his guilty plea. Moreover, the record shows Brown was fully aware that he was charged with using a dangerous weapon- specifically a knife-when he committed the domestic assault and battery. Brown is simply suffering from buyer’s remorse, which in and of itself does not render a guilty plea involuntary. See Fields, 1996 OK CR 35, I 53, 923 P.2d at 634 (plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered despite the Petitioner’s unhappiness with his sentence). This is not a case where Brown entered his plea through 4 inadvertence, ignorance or without deliberation. The trial court’s finding that Brown’s plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily was fully supported by the record. Denial of Brown’s motion to withdraw was thus not an abuse of discretion. Proposition I is denied.

Proposition II. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). See also Harrington U. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104-05, 131 S. Ct. 770, 787-88, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011) (summarizing Strickland two-part test); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59, 106 S. Ct. 366, 370, 88 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985) (applying two-part Strickland test to guilty pleas). There is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. Brown contends that plea counsel’s failure to provide him with the discovery materials prior to the entry of his plea amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. As a result of plea counsel’s 5 inaction, Brown argues he entered a plea of guilty that he otherwise would not have entered. In Proposition I, we addressed the underlying basis for this claim and found-based on the totality of the record-Brown’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. We specifically found Brown’s desire to obtain a copy of the discovery materials following his guilty plea was unrelated to his decision to enter a guilty plea. Thus, Brown fails to demonstrate Strickland prejudice. Taylor v. State, 2018 OK CR 6, I 15, 419 P.3d 265, 269 (“This Court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient if the claim can be disposed of based on lack of prejudice.”). Proposition II 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. 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(D)(1)
2. Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, ¶ 4, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142.
3. Lewis, 2009 OK CR 30, ¶ 5, 220 P.3d at 1142; Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998.
4. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170.
5. Elmore v. State, 1981 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, 624 P.2d 78, 80.
6. Fields v. State, 1996 OK CR 35, ¶ 28, 923 P.2d 624, 630.
7. 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.
8. Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383.
9. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
10. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104-05, 131 S. Ct. 770, 787-88, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011).
11. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59, 106 S. Ct. 366, 370, 88 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985).
12. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065.
13. Taylor v. State, 2018 OK CR 6, ¶ 15, 419 P.3d 265, 269.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(D)(1) - Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Sentencing After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Mandate Issuance Rules

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:

• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
• Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, I 4, 220 P.3d 1140, 1142
• Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30, I 5, 220 P.3d at 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, I 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
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)
• Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104-05, 131 S. Ct. 770, 787-88, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011)
• Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59, 106 S. Ct. 366, 370, 88 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985)
• Taylor v. State, 2018 OK CR 6, I 15, 419 P.3d 265, 269