Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2019-489

Filed: Mar. 26, 2020

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad

Summary

Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery, Child Neglect, and Arson. Her conviction and sentence were life imprisonment for each of the first three counts and ten years for the fourth count. Judge Dawn Moody sentenced her on May 16, 2019. Ahmad later asked to take back her guilty pleas, claiming they were made under pressure and that she didn't fully understand what she was agreeing to. However, the court decided that her pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. They denied her request to withdraw the pleas but agreed to correct a mistake about court costs in the written judgment. The final decision was to deny her appeal and affirm the lower court's judgment while sending it back for corrections on costs. Judge Hudson dissented.

Decision

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT with instructions to correct the Judgment and Sentence to state that no costs were imposed upon Petitioner. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there duress affecting the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of the guilty plea?
• did the trial court properly deny the motion to withdraw the guilty plea?
• did the Judgment and Sentence improperly include costs that were explicitly waived by the District Court?

Findings

• the court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea
• the oral sentence controls over the written judgment regarding costs
• the case is remanded to correct the Judgment and Sentence to reflect no costs imposed

C-2019-489

Mar. 26, 2020

Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE:

Petitioner Taheerah Ayesha Ahmad entered blind pleas of guilty to Assault and Battery by means likely to produce death (Count I) (21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 625(C)); Child Neglect (Counts II and III) (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C)); and Arson in the First Degree (Count IV) (21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1401(A)) in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2018-2028. The pleas were accepted by the Honorable Dawn Moody, District Judge, on April 16, 2019. On May 16, 2019, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment in each of Counts I, II, and III, and ten (10) years imprisonment in Count IV. The sentences in Counts I, II, and III were ordered to be served concurrently and the sentence in Count IV to be served consecutively to Count I. On May 24, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. At the conclusion of a hearing held on June 14, 2019, the motion to withdraw was denied. Petitioner appeals the denial of her motion and raises the following propositions of error:

I. Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw her plea which was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because it was entered under duress and as the result of frustration, misunderstanding, misapprehension, and without deliberation as the result of unseemly haste.

II. The judgment and sentence filed in this case improperly includes the payment of costs which were explicitly waived by the District Court.

After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and Petitioner’s brief, we have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw guilty plea. However, the case is remanded to the District Court to correct errors in the Judgment and Sentence reflecting the imposition of costs.

In her first proposition of error, Petitioner argues that she should have been allowed to withdraw her guilty plea because her plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because it was entered under duress and as the result of frustration, misunderstanding, misapprehension, and without deliberation as the result of unseemly haste. The decision to allow the withdrawal of a plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court and we will not interfere unless we find an abuse of discretion. 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 or a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170.

On appeal, our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 223 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Ocampo v. State, 1989 OK CR 38, ¶ 3, 78 P.2d 920, 921. Petitioner has the burden of showing that the plea was entered unadvisedly, through ignorance, inadvertence, influence or without deliberation, and that there is a defense to present to the jury. Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1382; Elmore v. State, 1981 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, 624 P.2d 78, 80. The voluntariness of the plea is to be determined by examining the entire record. Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, ¶ 28, 152 P.3d 244, 254.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, we find Petitioner’s guilty pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily. Whatever mental health issues Petitioner may have had did not affect her ability to understand the plea proceedings and enter knowing and voluntary guilty pleas. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw.

In Proposition II, Petitioner contends that the Judgment and Sentence filed in this case improperly included the payment of costs which were explicitly waived by the District Court. Oral pronouncements of sentences control over written conflicting orders. LeMay v. Rahhal, 1996 OK CR 21, ¶ 18, 917 P.2d 18, 22 citing U.S. v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir.1987). If there is a conflict between the oral sentence and the written judgment and sentence, the oral sentence controls. Id. This case is therefore remanded to the District Court with instructions to correct the Judgment and Sentence to reflect that no costs were imposed in this case.

DECISION

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT with instructions to correct the Judgment and Sentence to state that no costs were imposed upon Petitioner. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.
LEWIS, P.J.: Concur
KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur
HUDSON, J.: Concur
ROWLAND, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 625(C)
2. 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(C)
3. 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1401(A)
4. Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998.
5. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170.
6. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 223 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Ocampo v. State, 1989 OK CR 38, ¶ 3, 78 P.2d 920, 921.
7. Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1382;
8. Elmore v. State, 1981 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, 624 P.2d 78, 80.
9. Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, ¶ 28, 152 P.3d 244, 254.
10. LeMay v. Rahhal, 1996 OK CR 21, ¶ 18, 917 P.2d 18, 22 citing U.S. v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir.1987).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 625.6 (2011) - Assault and Battery by means likely to produce death
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5 (2014) - Child Neglect
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1401 (2013) - Arson in the First Degree

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:

• Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998
• Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170
• Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 223 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
• Ocampo v. State, 1989 OK CR 38, ¶ 3, 78 P.2d 920, 921
• Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1382
• Elmore v. State, 1981 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, 624 P.2d 78, 80
• Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, ¶ 28, 152 P.3d 244, 254
• LeMay v. Rahhal, 1996 OK CR 21, ¶ 18, 917 P.2d 18, 22
• U.S. v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1987)