Raheem Travon Walker v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2020-691

Filed: Jun. 9, 2022

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Raheem Travon Walker

Summary

**Walker appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery on an Employee of a Juvenile Detention Facility. Conviction and sentence: 90 days in jail and 2 years deferred sentencing on each count. Judge Lumpkin dissented.** In this case, Raheem Travon Walker pleaded guilty to attacking a worker at a juvenile detention facility. He thought he would get a special program for young adults to help him avoid a harsh punishment. However, later, the judge told him he wasn't eligible for that program because of his past record. Instead, he was given a sentence that included time in jail and a deferred sentence. Later, the state wanted to speed up Walker's punishment because he didn't follow the rules. A hearing took place, and Walker ended up with longer sentences. He tried to withdraw his guilty plea because he believed the deal he made wasn't kept. He argued that he didn't get the benefits he was promised when he pleaded guilty. The court looked at Walker's claims and agreed that he didn't receive what he was promised, so they allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea and return to trial. Judge Lumpkin disagreed with this decision, saying Walker's claims should not have been accepted because he didn't raise them properly before.

Decision

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the District Court of Muskogee County to allow Walker to withdraw his pleas and proceed to trial on all counts. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2022), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• whether Walker's plea was entered knowingly and intelligently
• whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw because a plea form was not filed
• whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw because he did not receive the sentence he negotiated
• whether Walker was denied effective assistance of plea and withdrawal counsel

Findings

• the court erred in denying Walker's motion to withdraw his guilty plea
• the plea agreement was breached when Walker did not receive the promised benefit of the Delayed Sentencing Program
• Walker showed both deficient performance and prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel
• the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, allowing Walker to withdraw his pleas and proceed to trial

C-2020-691

Jun. 9, 2022

Raheem Travon Walker

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

GRANTING CERTIORARI

ROWLAND, PRESIDING JUDGE:

Petitioner Raheem Travon Walker entered a negotiated guilty plea in the District Court of Muskogee County, to the crime of Assault and Battery on Employee of Juvenile Detention Facility in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 650.8, in Case No. YO-2019-1 (Counts 1, 2, and 3), and in Case No. YO-2019-3 (Count 1). Pursuant to the plea agreement, Walker was to be sentenced under the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults. Accordingly, Judge Bret Smith, District Judge, ordered an offender accountability plan for the delayed sentencing program. The district court was advised soon thereafter, however, that Walker was not eligible for the Delayed Sentencing Program because he was seventeen at the time he entered his pleas and because he had a juvenile adjudication for robbery by two or more persons. Consequently, the district court set the matter for sentencing. Walker was sentenced in both YO-2019-1 and YO-2019-3 to ninety days in the county jail and two years deferred sentencing on each count. Each ninety-day term assessed in YO-2019-1 was ordered to be served consecutively and the deferred sentences were to run concurrently with each other. The sentences assessed in YO-2019-1 were ordered to run concurrently with that assessed in YO-2019-3.

On March 3, 2020, the State filed applications to accelerate Walker’s deferred sentences. After a hearing on the applications, the district court accelerated the deferred sentences and ordered Walker to serve two years imprisonment on each count in each case. The court ordered the sentences in YO-2019-1 be served consecutively to each other and concurrently with the two-year sentence imposed in YO-2019-3. Walker filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After the appointment of conflict counsel, a hearing was held on the motion to withdraw. This motion was denied by the Honorable Bret Smith, District Judge. Walker appeals raising the following issues: (1) whether his plea was entered knowingly and intelligently; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw because a plea form was not filed; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw because he did not receive the sentence he negotiated; and (4) whether he was denied effective assistance of plea and withdrawal counsel. Because we find that relief is required, we address only the allegation of error requiring relief.

Walker argues the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not receive the promised benefit of his plea bargain. [P]lea-bargaining is an essential component of the administration of justice. Jiminez v. State, 2006 OK CR 43, ¶ 6, 144 P.3d 903, 905 (quoting Gray v. State, 1982 OK CR 137, 13-14, 650 P.2d 880, 883). If a defendant enters a plea in expectation of some agreed sentence or predicated on a particular agreed condition, that promise should be kept. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971) (circumstances will vary, but a constant factor is that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled). See also Couch v. State, 1991 OK CR 67, ¶ 6, 814 P.2d 1045, 1047 (defendant must be allowed to withdraw plea where trial court accepted plea agreement but imposed different sentence). Walker did not allege this specific claim he now raises on appeal in either his application to withdraw plea or in his petition for writ of certiorari. Thus, it was not litigated below, and under Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 27-29, 362 P.3d 650, 657 and Rules 4.2(B) & 4.3(C)(5), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2022), the claim is technically waived.

However, Walker also argues he is entitled to relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. He faults conflict counsel for waiving appellate review of this claim by not filing a new or supplemental motion to withdraw guilty plea alleging that he had not received the benefit of his bargain. To prevail, Walker must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance resulted in prejudice to his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Strickland prejudice in the plea withdrawal context is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the trial court would have granted the motion. Champion v. State, 2020 OK CR 8, ¶ 11, 461 P.3d 952, 955. As with any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient if the petitioner was not prejudiced by counsel’s actions. See Malone v. State, 2013 OK CR 1, ¶ 16, 293 P.3d 198, 207.

Walker did not receive the benefit for which he had bargained. He entered a plea with the understanding that he was subject to the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults and would be committed to it. After Walker was deemed ineligible for that program, his sentencing was deferred for the maximum length of time allowed on each count. Additionally, he did not receive other benefits associated with admission into the delayed sentencing program. Walker’s negotiated plea agreement was breached, and this breach was both material and substantial. Had defense counsel raised this error below allowing it to be litigated at the hearing on the motion to withdraw, Walker would have been entitled to relief and allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Walker has shown both deficient performance and prejudice and the proper remedy is to grant the petition, allow Walker to withdraw his plea, and place both parties in the same position they were prior to the entry of the plea.

DECISION

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the District Court of Muskogee County to allow Walker to withdraw his pleas and proceed to trial on all counts. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2022), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Title 22 O.S.Supp.2018, § 996.1 (22) provides: As used in the Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults: "Offender" means any adult eighteen (18) through twenty-five (25) years of age as of the date of a verdict of guilty or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for a nonviolent felony offense or a juvenile who has been certified to stand trial as an adult for a nonviolent felony offense, who has no charges pending for a violent offense and who has not been sentenced, or adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent or youthful offender, of: 22. Robbery by two (2) or more persons as defined by Section 800 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
2. The sentencing proceeding was not transcribed. The setting of the sentencing hearing and the sentences imposed are noted in court minutes included within the original record in YO-2019-1.
3. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
4. Couch v. State, 1991 OK CR 67, ¶ 6, 814 P.2d 1045, 1047.
5. Malone v. State, 2013 OK CR 1, ¶ 16, 293 P.3d 198, 207.
6. See 21 O.S.2011, § 650.8; 21 O.S.2011, § 9.
7. See Rules 4.2(B) and 4.3(C)(5), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2022).
8. Pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2018, § 996.3(A).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 650.8 (2011) - Assault and Battery on Employee of Juvenile Detention Facility
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 996.1 (2018) - Delayed Sentencing Program for Young Adults
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 800 (2011) - Robbery by Two or More Persons
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 996.3 (2018) - Sentencing after Completion of RID Program
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991c (2018) - Deferment of Judgment

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:

• Jiminez v. State, 2006 OK CR 43, I 6, 144 P.3d 903, 905
• Gray v. State, 1982 OK CR 137, 13-14, 650 P.2d 880, 883
• Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971)
• Couch v. State, 1991 OK CR 67, I 6, 814 P.2d 1045, 1047
• Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, II 27-29, 362 P.3d 650, 657
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
• Champion v. State, 2020 OK CR 8, I 11, 461 P.3d 952, 955
• Malone v. State, 2013 OK CR 1, II 16, 293 P.3d 198, 207