Richard Lloyd VanMeter v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2008-963

Filed: Mar. 26, 2009

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Richard Lloyd VanMeter appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and other offenses. The Court reversed his conviction and sentence, stating that he was treated unfairly when he was removed from the DUI/Drug Court Program. Judge Sarah D. Smith dissented.

Decision

The final orders terminating Appellant, Richard Lloyd VanMeter, from the DUI/Drug Court Program in Tulsa County District Court, Case Nos. CF-2007-2699 and CM-2008-485, are REVERSED and his convictions in those cases VACATED WITH INSTRUCTIONS to reinstate Appellant to the Tulsa County DUI/Drug Court Program under the conditions of the plea agreement executed on February 29, 2008. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2009), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion by the District Court in terminating Appellant's participation in Drug Court?
• Did the Appellant's due process rights get violated due to the lack of a new motion alleging subsequent violations of DUI/Drug Court requirements?
• Was the termination of the Appellant from the DUI/Drug Court Program justified by the court record and proper notification requirements?

Findings

• the court erred in terminating Appellant's participation in the DUI/Drug Court Program
• Appellant was denied due process due to lack of a new motion alleging subsequent violation of DUI/Drug Court requirements
• the final orders terminating Appellant from the DUI/Drug Court Program are reversed
• Appellant's convictions in those cases are vacated with instructions to reinstate Appellant to the Tulsa County DUI/Drug Court Program

F-2008-963

Mar. 26, 2009

Richard Lloyd VanMeter

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE: In the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2007-2699, Richard Lloyd VanMeter, Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor-Second Offense and Operating a Motor Vehicle with Taxes Due the State. On June 27, 2007, pursuant to a plea agreement, the Honorable Sarah D. Smith, Special Judge, delayed sentencing and admitted Appellant to the Tulsa County DUI/Drug Court Program. Approximately seven months after admission to that program, Appellant was charged in CM-2008-485 with having committed six new offenses: Count 1: Eluding a Police Officer; Count 2: Driving With License Cancelled/Suspended/Revoked; Count 3: Obstructing an Officer; Count 4: Failure to Carry Insurance/Security Verification Form; Count 5: Failure to Pay Taxes Due State; and Count 6: Improper Muffler.

Due to these new offenses, the State, on February 15, 2008, filed a Motion to Revoke Defendant’s Participation in Drug/DUI Court. On February 29, 2008, Appellant confessed that Motion and pled guilty to the six new charges in CM-2008-485. Thereupon, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Judge Smith returned Appellant to the Tulsa County DUI/Drug Court Program under a document titled Amended Exhibit A-Tulsa County DUI/Drug Court Program. This Amended Exhibit A, signed by Appellant and the State’s attorney, set out the alternative final dispositions for all of Appellant’s charges in both pending District Court cases, those alternative dispositions being dependent upon Appellant success or failure in completing the DUI/Drug Court Program.

Judge Smith’s court minutes in both cases set sentencing off for one year to February of 2009 to allow Appellant time to complete this program; however, Judge Smith set both matters for review in March of 2008. Beginning in March of 2008, docket entries in Appellant’s cases show his matters being continued from month to month until an entry on August 8, 2008, in CF-2007-2699, when Judge Smith issued a bench warrant for failure to comply with Drug Court requirements. A September 12, 2008, docket entry in that same case states that Appellant is in custody and that the service of written motion [is] passed to 10-03-08. Appellant’s matter then came on for hearing on October 3, 2008, and except for the Motion to Revoke filed on February 15, 2008, there is no record of any other motion to terminate having been filed or served on Appellant. Nevertheless, Judge Smith terminated Appellant from the DUI/Drug Court Program in both case numbers. In doing so, Judge Smith pronounced sentence in both cases in accordance with that portion of the Amended Exhibit A delineating what sentences were to be imposed should Appellant fail to complete the DUI/Drug Court Program.

In CF-2007-2699, Judge Smith sentenced Appellant on Count 1 to two (2) years imprisonment and a $500.00 fine. On Count 2, sentence was for a fine of $10.00. In CM-2008-485, Judge Smith dismissed Count 3 and imposed sentence on the remaining counts as follows: Count 1, one (1) year in the Tulsa County Jail and a fine of $250.00. Count 2, six (6) months in the Tulsa County Jail. Count 4, a fine of $10.00. Count 5, a fine of $10.00.

Appellant now appeals the final orders of termination. Appellant raises a single proposition of error on appeal: The District Court’s order terminating Appellant’s participation in Drug Court constituted an abuse of discretion. Having thoroughly considered Appellant’s proposition of error and the entire record before the Court, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, the Court FINDS reversal is required.

Under Appellant’s proposition of error, he argues, among other things, that he was denied due process by lack of any new motion alleging a subsequent violation of his DUI/Drug Court requirements after his having been returned to the DUI/Drug Court under the agreement reflected in the Amended Exhibit A. The Court finds merit to this claim. The only motion asking for termination was that which the State filed on February 15, 2008, in CF-2007-2699. That motion, however, was confessed and adjudicated at the February 29, 2008, hearing with a disposition that returned Appellant to the Tulsa County DUI/Drug Court Program on his charges in that case as well as admitting him to the program on the new offenses to which he pled guilty in CM-2008-485. Having been readmitted to the DUI/Drug Court Program under the February 29, 2008, plea agreement approved by the Drug Court Judge, termination from that program required the filing of a new written notice setting forth any grounds for termination arising subsequent to February 29th.

While the trial judge may have intended something different when setting review hearings and continuing them following Appellant’s confession of the Motion to Revoke and the readmission of Appellant to the DUI/Drug Court Program, that intent is not reflected in the appeal record. This Court is bound by the record it receives from the trial court.

DECISION

The final orders terminating Appellant, Richard Lloyd VanMeter, from the DUI/Drug Court Program in Tulsa County District Court, Case Nos. CF-2007-2699 and CM-2008-485, are REVERSED and his convictions in those cases VACATED WITH INSTRUCTIONS to reinstate Appellant to the Tulsa County DUI/Drug Court Program under the conditions of the plea agreement executed on February 29, 2008. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2009), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED upon the filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991a.
2. Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 14, 990 P.2d 894, 898-99.
3. Hagar, ¶ 15, 990 P.2d at 899 (citation omitted).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentencing for Felonies
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-801(B)(1) (2011) - Driving Under the Influence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-101 (2011) - Operating a Motor Vehicle with Suspended License
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 7-601 (2011) - Failure to Maintain Security Verification
• Okla. Stat. tit. 68 § 2101 (2011) - Failure to Pay Taxes Due State
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540 (2011) - Obstructing an Officer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 12-401 (2011) - Improper Muffler

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:

• Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 14, 990 P.2d 894, 898-99
• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800