Jeffrey Montrell Alexander McClellan v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2020-668

Filed: Sep. 30, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Jeffrey Montrell Alexander McClellan

Summary

Jeffrey Montrell Alexander McClellan appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. His conviction and sentence were for twelve years in prison and a one thousand dollar fine. McClellan disagreed with his lawyer's help during a hearing to withdraw his guilty plea and claimed he did not have a lawyer who could represent him without conflicts of interest. The court agreed with him and decided he should be given a new hearing with a different lawyer who could represent him better. Judge Lewis dissented.

Decision

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for a new hearing on McClellan's application to withdraw plea with separate, conflict-free counsel. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2021), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• whether McClellan was denied the right to effective counsel
• did an actual conflict of interest adversely affect McClellan's lawyer's performance
• was McClellan entitled to conflict-free representation during the motion to withdraw his guilty plea
• did the district court err in denying McClellan's application to withdraw his plea

Findings

• the court erred
• the sentence was reversed
• a new hearing is ordered
• conflict-free counsel must be appointed

C-2020-668

Sep. 30, 2021

Jeffrey Montrell Alexander McClellan

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

GRANTING CERTIORARI

ROWLAND, PRESIDING JUDGE: Petitioner Jeffrey Montrell Alexander McClellan entered a guilty plea in the District Court of Comanche County, Case No. CF-2017-51, to Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2015, § 2-415(B). The Honorable Gerald Neuwirth, District Judge, accepted McClellan’s plea and sentenced him to twelve years imprisonment and a one thousand dollar fine.

McClellan wrote the district court a letter expressing his intent to appeal based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court accepted this letter as a timely application to withdraw plea, which was subsequently denied. McClellan appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw plea raising the following issue: (1) whether he was denied the right to effective counsel.

McClellan claims he was deprived of conflict-free counsel at his plea withdrawal hearing. He requests this Court reverse the order of the district court denying his application to withdraw plea, and remand the case to the district court for a hearing on the motion to withdraw with the benefit of conflict-free counsel. This Court has held that a defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and at the evidentiary hearing on such a motion. Randall v. State, 1993 OK CR 47, II 5-7, 861 P.2d 314, 316. In Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, II 5, 8, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118 (citing Woods v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271 (1981)), we further held that this right to counsel includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel, which includes the correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest.

To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a conflict of interest, a defendant who raised no objection at trial or a hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea need not show prejudice, but ‘must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. Carey, 1995 OK CR 55, I 10, 902 P.2d at 1118 (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349 (1980)). A conflict of interest arises where counsel owes conflicting duties to the defendant and some other person or counsel’s own interests. Allen v. State, 1994 OK CR 30, 11, 874 P.2d 60, 63. An actual conflict exists where a defendant asserts that his attorney’s ineffectiveness or coercion resulted in an invalid plea and this same attorney represents the defendant at the hearing on the motion to withdraw. See Carey, 1995 OK CR 55, I 10, 902 P.2d at 1118; Rule 1.7(a)(2), Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.2011, Ch. 1, App. 3-A. Consequently, when a defendant asserts that his plea is invalid due to ineffective assistance or attorney coercion, the trial court should automatically appoint new, conflict-free counsel on the motion to withdraw the plea.

In the present case, McClellan filed a letter, treated by the district court as a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that his plea counsel was ineffective. McClellan was represented at the hearing on the motion to withdraw by the same counsel who represented him at the plea hearing. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, defense counsel was present in court and McClellan appeared through video feed from the Comanche County Detention Center. Defense counsel’s only participation in the hearing was to state that he had nothing to say. While the trial court allowed McClellan to explain why he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, McClellan proceeded at the hearing without defense counsel advocating his position and with the prosecutor advocating against him; McClellan had no counsel promoting his interests, which were in actual conflict with the interests of plea counsel. McClellan was entitled to effective and conflict-free representation. Accordingly, this case is remanded for a new hearing on McClellan’s motion to withdraw guilty plea and the trial court is ordered to appoint new, conflict-free counsel to represent McClellan on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and on the evidentiary hearing on this motion.

DECISION

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for a new hearing on McClellan’s application to withdraw plea with separate, conflict-free counsel. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2021), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.2015, § 2-415(B)
2. Randall v. State, 1993 OK CR 47, ¶ 5-7, 861 P.2d 314, 316
3. Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, ¶ 5, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118
4. Woods v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271 (1981)
5. Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, ¶ 10, 902 P.2d at 1118
6. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349 (1980)
7. Allen v. State, 1994 OK CR 30, ¶ 11, 874 P.2d 60, 63
8. Rule 1.7(a)(2), Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.2011, Ch. 1, App. 3-A
9. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2021)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-415 (2015) - Trafficking in Illegal Drugs
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Effective assistance of counsel
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2021) - Mandate issuance

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

• Rule 1.7(a)(2), Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct

Case citations:

• Randall v. State, 1993 OK CR 47, II 5-7, 861 P.2d 314, 316
• Carey v. State, 1995 OK CR 55, II 5, 902 P.2d 1116, 1118
• Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349 (1980)
• Allen v. State, 1994 OK CR 30, I 11, 874 P.2d 60, 63