Steven Dale Countryman v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2006-341

Filed: Aug. 7, 2007

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Steven Dale Countryman appealed his conviction for trying to make methamphetamine and other drug-related charges. His conviction and sentence were modified, meaning he will serve a shorter time in prison. Justice A. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The convictions are hereby AFFIRMED, but the sentences are hereby MODIFIED to run concurrently, with all but three (3) years of the sentence on Count I to be SUSPENDED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to communicate plea offers to Appellant?
• Should the trial court have granted Appellant's motion for a new trial?
• Was Appellant deprived of a fair trial due to serious errors by trial counsel?
• Is sentence modification an appropriate remedy in this case?

Findings

• the court erred in holding that trial counsel's actions were ineffective
• the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions
• the trial court should have granted the motion for a new trial
• the sentences were modified to run concurrently
• the majority of the sentence on Count I was suspended

F-2006-341

Aug. 7, 2007

Steven Dale Countryman

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Steven Dale Countryman was tried by jury in Choctaw County District Court Case No. CF-2005-34 and convicted of Attempting to Manufacture CDS (Methamphetamine) (Count I), in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-401(G), Unlawful Possession of CDS (Methamphetamine) (Count II), in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-402(B)(1), Possession of a Police Scanner during Felony Commission (Count IV), in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1214, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count VI), in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2-405. The jury set punishment at seven years imprisonment on Count I, two years imprisonment on Count II, two years six months imprisonment on Count IV, and six months imprisonment on Count VI. The trial judge sentenced accordingly, ordering the sentences on Counts I, II and VI to run concurrently and the sentence on Count IV to run consecutively to Count I. Appellant now appeals his convictions and sentences.

Appellant was acquitted of possessing a firearm during a felony and possession of marijuana. Appellant raises the following propositions of error in this appeal:

I. Appellant was prejudiced by trial counsel’s ineffective representation where he failed to communicate plea offers to Appellant; and

II. The trial court should have granted Appellant’s motion for new trial.

After a thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find modification is required, as set forth below.

With respect to propositions one and two, Appellant has adequately shown errors by trial counsel that were so serious as to deprive him of a fair trial, one with a reliable result. The evidence presented at the hearing on the Motion for New Trial revealed Appellant’s counsel failed to communicate a plea offer from the State and Appellant’s counsel was being paid for his services with illegal drugs. Strickland U. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As he does not contest guilt, however, we find sentence modification is the best remedy. 22 O.S.2001, § 1066.

DECISION

The convictions are hereby AFFIRMED, but the sentences are hereby MODIFIED to run concurrently, with all but three (3) years of the sentence on Count I to be SUSPENDED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

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

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 1 Appellant was acquitted of possessing a firearm during a felony and possession of marijuana.
2. Strickland U. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
3. 22 O.S.2001, § 1066.
4. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401 (2004) - Attempting to Manufacture CDS (Methamphetamine)
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 (2004) - Unlawful Possession of CDS (Methamphetamine)
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1214 (2001) - Possession of a Police Scanner during Felony Commission
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-405 (2004) - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1066 (2001) - Post-Conviction Relief

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:

No case citations found.