PR 2018-1203
OPINION ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT On November 29, 2018, Petitioner, by and through counsel Melissa A. French, filed an application for an…
RE-2018-644
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DUSTIN ARDELL CRUCE,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** No. RE-2018-644 **NOT FOR PUBLICATION** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **APR 25 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK** **SUMMARY OPINION** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Appellant Dustin Ardell Cruce appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Okfuskee County District Court Case No. CF-2016-143, overseen by the Honorable Lawrence W. Parish. On February 22, 2017, Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including Assault With a Dangerous Weapon (Counts 1 and 2), Burglary in the Second Degree (Count 3), Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property (Count 4), and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count 5). Appellant was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, all suspended and ordered to run concurrently. On October 31, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence, citing Appellant's failure to pay reimbursement fees and an alleged new crime of Domestic Abuse—Assault and Battery Against a Pregnant Woman (Case No. CM-2017-126). However, during a revocation hearing on May 2, 2018, the State abandoned its claim regarding the new crime as part of a plea agreement. Consequently, the only remaining basis for revocation was Appellant's failure to pay the ordered reimbursement fees. The trial court ultimately revoked five years of Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant asserts that the court abused its discretion by not allowing him to remain in the community, claiming his overall performance during probation warranted a more lenient outcome. **Legal Standards** In revocation hearings, the State must only prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence (Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, ¶ 10). Appellant admitted to violating probation conditions due to non-payment of fees, failing to demonstrate attempts to satisfy his financial obligations. **Conclusion** The trial court exercised discretion by revoking part of Appellant's suspended sentence, and given the circumstances, including admitted violations, the court's decision aligns with established legal standards. The revocation is hereby **AFFIRMED**. **OPINION BY:** ROWLAND, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Results **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur The mandate will issue upon the filing of this decision in accordance with Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. **[Download PDF Version](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-22_1734709407.pdf)**
RE-2018-128
In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Milton Roger Hornsby appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence from the McIntosh County District Court, overseen by Judge James D. Bland. This appeal arose from convictions in two cases, CF-2012-45 and CF-2012-60, covering multiple charges including possession of a firearm after conviction and assault with a dangerous weapon. Hornsby initially received a twenty-year suspended sentence for one charge and six-month suspended sentences for others, all to be served concurrently. The State's motion to revoke the suspended sentences, filed on September 19, 2016, was due to an alleged new crime involving assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Following a hearing on December 29, 2016, Judge Bland revoked ten years of Hornsby's suspended sentences. Hornsby raised several legal arguments on appeal: 1. **Burden of Proof**: He argued that Judge Bland imposed a lower burden of proof than required. However, the court affirmed that Judge Bland properly articulated the standard during the hearing, which was that the State needed to show it was more likely than not that Hornsby violated his probation. 2. **Suppressed Evidence**: Hornsby contended that evidence pertaining to the use of a knife, previously suppressed in a related case, was improperly considered at the revocation hearing. The court noted that Hornsby did not object during the hearing and thus waived his right to raise this issue on appeal apart from claiming plain error, which he failed to establish. 3. **Intent to Harm**: Hornsby claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove he intended to inflict bodily harm. The court stated that the evidence presented was sufficient to suggest that it was more likely than not that Hornsby had such intent. 4. **Cumulative Errors**: Lastly, Hornsby argued that the accumulation of errors deprived him of a fair hearing. The court found no merit in this argument, as each proposition raised was without merit. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in Judge Bland's decision to revoke the suspended sentence, affirming the revocation. The mandate was ordered to issue following the filing of the decision.