Charles Arnold Fields v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2005-1094

Filed: Mar. 28, 2007

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Charles Arnold Fields

Summary

Charles Arnold Fields appealed his conviction for Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug. His conviction and sentence were 15 years to life in prison and a $200,000 fine. The court decided that Fields did not properly waive his right to have a lawyer, which means he should get a new trial. Judge A. Johnson disagreed with the decision.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was Fields's waiver of his right to counsel made knowingly and voluntarily?
• Is Fields's indeterminate sentence valid?
• Did the trial court err in overruling Fields's motion to suppress?

Findings

• the court erred
• the indeterminate sentence is moot
• the motion to suppress is moot

F-2005-1094

Mar. 28, 2007

Charles Arnold Fields

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Charles Arnold Fields was tried by jury in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2003-5983, and was found guilty of Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2003, § 2-401. The jury fixed punishment at 15 years imprisonment to life imprisonment and a $200,000 fine. The Honorable Gary Snow, who presided at trial, imposed the indeterminate sentence and fine. From this judgment and sentence, Fields appeals.

This case raises the following issues:
1. Whether Fields waived his right to counsel knowingly and voluntarily;
2. Whether Fields’s indeterminate sentence is valid; and
3. Whether the trial court erred in overruling Fields’s motion to suppress.

We find the error raised in Proposition 1 requires us to reverse Fields’s conviction and remand this matter for a new trial. In Proposition 1, Fields correctly contends that he is entitled to a new trial because he never asked to represent himself below and the trial court failed to advise him in any manner of the inherent disadvantages of waiving his right to counsel and of self-representation. A defendant’s right to counsel may be waived if done knowingly and voluntarily, but waiver will not be lightly presumed, and the court must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. Norton v. State, 2002 OK CR 10, I 7, 43 P.3d 404, 407; Okla. Const. art. II, § 20; U.S. Const. amend. VI. Before jury selection commenced, Fields asked to fire his attorneys. The trial judge responded that he could either represent himself and have his current attorneys act as standby counsel or proceed with his current attorneys. The State confesses error on this claim and agrees that Fields is entitled to a new trial.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

CHARLES ARNOLD FIELDS
GEORGE PRO SE

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

GEORGE LAW OFFICE
5929 N. MAY AVENUE
SUITE 509
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73112
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

JAKE BURKS
W. DREW EDMONDSON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL
500 SOUTH DENVER
SUITE 900
TULSA, OK 74103
DONALD D. SELF
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.E. 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, J. LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur C. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: Concur CHAPEL, J.: Concur LEWIS, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401.
2. Norton v. State, 2002 OK CR 10, "I 7, 43 P.3d 404, 407.
3. Okla. Const. art. II, § 20.
4. U.S. Const. amend. VI.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401 - Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Drug
• Okla. Const. art. II, § 20 - Right to Counsel
• U.S. Const. amend. VI - Right to Counsel

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:

• Norton v. State, 2002 OK CR 10, I 7, 43 P.3d 404, 407