Starlyn Sean Hill v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2021-504

Filed: Feb. 9, 2023

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Starlyn Sean Hill appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including aggravated possession of child pornography and several counts of rape. Hill had been sentenced to a total of 40 years in prison for the most severe offenses and received lesser sentences for others. After pleading guilty, Hill wanted to withdraw his plea, claiming he was rushed and didn't fully understand his situation. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decided that Hill should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because there were significant issues with how the plea was handled. They determined that the statute of limitations had expired for many of the charges against him, which means the state could no longer legally prosecute him for those offenses. The court also found that Hill's plea was not entered in a voluntary and intelligent manner. The decision was that Hill's appeal was granted, his original conviction and sentence were canceled, and he was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The case was sent back to the lower court for further action. There was a dissenting opinion from one judge who agreed with the overall decision but wanted to highlight specific legal points.

Decision

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence is VACATED. The case is REMANDED with directions that Hill be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and that the district court conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2023), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• whether his plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because he was coerced and rushed into pleading without sufficient deliberation;
• whether his plea was entered knowingly, intelligently because he was misadvised of the proper sentence as to two counts;
• whether the statute of limitations had expired on ten counts for which he has been convicted;
• whether the court failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea;
• whether he was denied effective assistance of plea counsel;
• whether an accumulation of error deprived him of a fair proceeding;

Findings

• the court erred
• the plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
• the statute of limitations barred prosecution on certain counts
• the trial court failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for the plea
• the motion to withdraw the plea was granted

C-2021-504

Feb. 9, 2023

Starlyn Sean Hill

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Petitioner, Starlyn Sean Hill, appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw guilty plea in the District Court of Grady County in Case No. CF-2020-313. Hill entered a plea of guilty to: Count 1: Aggravated Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1040.12a; Count 2: Rape – First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1115; Count 3: Rape – First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1115; Count 4: Rape – First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.: 2002, § 1115; Count 5: Child Abuse, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2019, § 843.5; Count 6: Lewd or Indecent Acts to Child Under 12, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 1123; Count 7: Lewd or Indecent Acts to Child Under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1123; Count 8: Lewd or Indecent Proposals to Child Under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1123; Count 9: Forcible Oral Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 888; Count 10: Forcible Oral Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 888; Count 11: Forcible Oral Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2000, § 888; Count 12: Forcible Oral Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2000, § 888; Count 13: Forcible Oral Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2000, § 888; Count 14: Forcible Oral Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2000, § 888; Count 15: Pornography – Procure / Produce / Distribute / Possess Juvenile Pornography, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1021.2; Count 16: Forcible Oral Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2002, § 888; Count 17: Forcible Oral Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2002, § 888; Count 18: Lewd or Indecent Acts to Child Under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2003, § 1123; and Count 19: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, in violation of 63 O.S.2011, § 2-405(B).

The Honorable Regina Lowe, Special Judge, accepted Hill’s guilty plea and sentenced him to forty years imprisonment as to each of Counts 1-6, twenty years imprisonment as to each of Counts 7-18, and one year in the county jail as to Count 19. Petitioner will be required to serve 85% of his sentence on Counts 1-18 before becoming eligible for parole consideration. Judge Lowe ordered all counts to be served concurrently with each other and awarded credit for all time served.

Hill filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea. After a hearing on the motion to withdraw, the District Court denied his motion and Hill perfected the instant certiorari appeal raising the following issues: (1) whether his plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because he was coerced and rushed into pleading without sufficient deliberation; (2) whether his plea was entered knowingly and intelligently because he was misadvised of the proper sentence as to two counts; (3) whether the statute of limitations had expired on ten counts for which he has been convicted; (4) whether the court failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea; (5) whether he was denied effective assistance of plea counsel; and (6) whether an accumulation of error deprived him of a fair proceeding.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and the parties’ briefs, we find that relief is required under the law and evidence. Certiorari review is ordinarily limited to the following issues: whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction, Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, I 11, 362 P.3d 650, 654; whether the sentence is excessive, Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, I 9, 341 P.3d 87, 90; whether counsel was constitutionally effective at either the plea hearing or the withdrawal hearing, Tate v. State, 2013 OK CR 18, I 38, 313 P.3d 274, 284-85, Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, 932 P.2d 22; and whether the State has the power to prosecute the defendant at all, Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, I 12, 362 P.3d at 654.

In Proposition III, Petitioner claims that the statute of limitations expired on ten of the charges against him prior to the filing of the Information. In Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, IT 4, 9, 152 P.3d 244, 248-49, overruled on other grounds in State v. Vincent, 2016 OK CR 7, 9, 371 P.3d 1127, we carefully considered whether the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement or an affirmative defense, and found that the temporal jurisdictional limits on the power of the court to adjudicate a case, as well as the State’s power to prosecute, make the statute of limitations a jurisdictional bar. We further held in Cox that an assertion that the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations will not be deemed waived by a defendant’s silence and a violation of a statute of limitations may be raised for the first time on appeal. Id. at I 9.

A review of the entire record before us shows that the Bindover Information filed April 15, 2021, includes charges that were filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. Title 22, Section 152 of the Oklahoma Statutes, at all times relevant to those charges required prosecution no later than 7 years after discovery of the crime, and discovery of the crime was limited to one year after a minor reaches the age of majority. 22 O.S. § 152. Counts 11 through 18 all include victims that were 31 or 32 at the time of reporting the crime, and therefore could not have been discovered or prosecuted within the applicable limitation. Counts 4 and 6 of the Bindover Information include insufficient details to determine whether they are outside the statute of limitations, but sufficient details to make this Court question the district court’s jurisdiction. As the record is insufficient for this Court to determine whether Counts 4 and 6 are outside the limitations period, we cannot expect that Petitioner would have been able to make such a determination prior to his plea. The record does not show Petitioner affirmatively waived his challenge to the statute of limitations on any of the charged offenses. The trial court’s acceptance of Petitioner’s plea without a valid waiver was error. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969). Without a valid waiver, the record before us does not support that Petitioner’s plea was voluntary and intelligent, or that the State had the power to prosecute Petitioner on at least eight, possibly ten, of the nineteen counts. Due to these errors, Petitioner’s plea was not voluntary and intelligent. Petitioner is entitled to withdraw his plea.

As the relief warranted in this Proposition allows Petitioner to withdraw his plea, the resolution renders Propositions I, II, IV, V and VI of Petitioner’s brief moot.

DECISION

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence is VACATED. The case is REMANDED with directions that Hill be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and that the district court conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2023), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Petitioner will be required to serve 85% of his sentence on Counts 1-18 before becoming eligible for parole consideration. 21 O.S.Supp, 2015, § 13.1.
2. In Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, IT 4, 9, 152 P.3d 244, 248-49, overruled on other grounds in State v. Vincent, 2016 OK CR 7, 9, 371 P.3d 1127.
3. We are not bound by the United States Supreme Court's analysis of the federal statute of limitations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 in Mussachio v. U.S., 577 U.S. 237 (2016). See Dennis v. State, 1999 OK CR 23, I 20, 990 P.2d 277, 285-86.
4. Title 22, Section 152 of the Oklahoma Statutes, at all times relevant to those charges 22 O.S. § 152.
5. 22 O.S.Supp.2017, § 152(C)(1), which provides for prosecution of various crimes against minors until the victim's forty-fifth birthday.
6. 22 O.S.2021, § 153.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1040.12a (2011) - Aggravated Possession of Child Pornography
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1115 (2011) - Rape - First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1115 (Supp. 2002) - Rape - First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5 (Supp. 2019) - Child Abuse
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123 (Supp. 1999) - Lewd or Indecent Acts to Child Under 12
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123 (Supp. 2017) - Lewd or Indecent Acts to Child Under 16
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123 (Supp. 2017) - Lewd or Indecent Proposals to Child Under 16
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 888 (Supp. 2018) - Forcible Oral Sodomy
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 888 (Supp. 2000) - Forcible Oral Sodomy
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1021.2 (2001) - Pornography - Procure / Produce / Distribute / Possess Juvenile Pornography
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 888 (Supp. 2002) - Forcible Oral Sodomy
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123 (Supp. 2003) - Lewd or Indecent Acts to Child Under 16
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-405(B) (2011) - Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (Supp. 2015) - Parole Eligibility
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 152 - Statute of Limitations
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 152(C)(1) (Supp. 2017) - Prosecution of crimes against minors
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 153 (2021) - Tolling Statute of Limitations

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:

• 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
• Tate v. State, 2013 OK CR 18, I 38, 313 P.3d 274, 284-85
• Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, 932 P.2d 22
• Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, IT 4, 9, 152 P.3d 244, 248-49
• State v. Vincent, 2016 OK CR 7, 9, 371 P.3d 1127
• Dennis v. State, 1999 OK CR 23, I 20, 990 P.2d 277, 285-86
• Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969)