Conner E. Dover v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2019-25

Filed: Dec. 12, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Conner E. Dover appealed his conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and aggravated attempting to elude a police officer. His conviction and sentence were for five years in prison for each charge, to be served one after the other. Judge Ray C. Elliott originally accepted his guilty plea but later denied his request to withdraw that plea. Dover argued that the court made a mistake by not following what he thought was the agreement about his sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that Dover's plea was made voluntarily and accepted the trial court's decision. They denied his appeal and upheld his sentence. No justices disagreed with this decision.

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 there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in not allowing Mr. Dover to withdraw his guilty plea?
• Did the trial court intend to sentence Mr. Dover in accordance with his plea agreement?
• Was the guilty plea entered voluntarily and intelligently?
• Was the sentence imposed excessive?
• Was Mr. Dover's counsel constitutionally effective?
• Did the State have the power to prosecute Mr. Dover?

Findings

• The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner's motion to withdraw the plea.
• Petitioner's plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
• Petitioner's dissatisfaction with the sentences he received is not a sufficient ground for withdrawal of a plea.
• No relief is warranted.
• The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED.
• The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED.

C-2019-25

Dec. 12, 2019

Conner E. Dover

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Conner E. Dover, Petitioner, pled guilty to Count 1, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-402; and Count 2, aggravated attempting to elude a police officer, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(A)(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2018-610. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, accepted the plea and delayed sentencing pending Petitioner’s completion of a Regimented Inmate Discipline program. Judge Elliott later sentenced Petitioner to five (5) years imprisonment in each count, to be served consecutively. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. He now seeks the writ of certiorari in the following proposition of error: The trial court abused its discretion in not allowing Mr. Dover to withdraw his guilty plea when the court did not intend to sentence him in accordance with his plea agreement.

Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction, Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶11, 362 P.3d 650, 654; whether the sentence is excessive, Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, ¶9, 341 P.3d 87, 90; whether counsel was constitutionally effective, Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶27, 932 P.2d 22, 31, and whether the State has the power to prosecute the defendant at all, Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶12, 362 P.3d at 654. 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). We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion, Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶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, ¶16, 362 P.3d at 654.

We find that Petitioner’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the sentences he received is not a sufficient ground for withdrawal of a plea. Lozoya, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶44, 932 P.2d at 34; Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion to withdraw the plea. 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. 47 O.S.2011, § 4-402
2. 21 O.S.2011, § 540(A)(B)
3. Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 11, 362 P.3d 650, 654
4. Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, ¶ 9, 341 P.3d 87, 90
5. Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 27, 932 P.2d 22, 31
6. Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 12, 362 P.3d at 654
7. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)
8. Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998
9. Lozoya, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 44, 932 P.2d at 34
10. Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 4-402 - Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540 - Aggravated attempting to elude a police officer

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:

## Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

• 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, I 27, 932 P.2d 22, 31
• 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