Zachary Craig Anderson v State Of Oklahoma

F-2017-1038

Filed: Apr. 1, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Zachary Craig Anderson appealed his conviction for Child Neglect. His conviction and sentence were upheld, sentencing him to twenty years in prison. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Appellant's Application for Evidentiary Hearing on Sixth Amendment Claims is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to challenge the admissibility of statements purportedly made to police?
• Did the trial counsel's performance meet the requirements of the Sixth Amendment and Article II, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution?
• Was Appellant subjected to custodial interrogation that would necessitate Miranda warnings before his statements could be used against him?
• Did Appellant voluntarily cooperate with authorities during questioning, negating the need for Miranda protections?
• Was the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel meritless based on Appellant's cooperation and lack of evidence showing custodial interrogation?
• Was the application for an evidentiary hearing on ineffectiveness claims properly denied due to insufficient evidence?

Findings

• the court erred in denying the ineffective assistance of counsel claim
• evidence was not sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel
• the Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED
• Appellant's Application for Evidentiary Hearing on Sixth Amendment Claims is DENIED

F-2017-1038

Apr. 1, 2019

Zachary Craig Anderson

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant, Zachary Craig Anderson, was tried and convicted at a bench trial in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-3823, of Child Neglect, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5. The Honorable Michele D. McElwee, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Appellant to twenty (20) years imprisonment. Judge McElwee ordered credit for time served. Anderson now appeals, raising one (1) proposition of error before this Court:

I. BY FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS APPELLANT PURPORTEDLY MADE TO POLICE, TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO DELIVER THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL REQUIRED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE II, SECTION 20 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and the parties’ briefs, we find that no relief is required under the law and evidence. Appellant’s judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the appellant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104, 131 S. Ct. 770, 787-88, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011) (summarizing Strickland, supra). Appellant fails to show either deficient performance or prejudice from defense counsel’s failure to object to Appellant’s statements based upon Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). The Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and silence arise when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467-70, 86 S. Ct. at 1625-26; Taylor v. State, 2018 OK CR 6, ¶ 6, 419 P.3d 265, 268. Under Miranda, no statement obtained through custodial interrogation may be used against a defendant without a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights. Taylor, 2018 OK CR 6, ¶ 6, 419 P.3d at 268 (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S. Ct. at 1612). However, it is well established that police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S. Ct. 711, 714, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1977). The Supreme Court in Miranda held [v]olunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S. Ct. at 1630.

The record shows that Appellant cooperated with authorities who appeared at the crime scene and voluntarily subjected himself to questioning. Defense counsel stated on the record that Appellant had told him that he voluntarily spoke with authorities and didn’t feel pressured or threatened in any way. Appellant testified at trial that he tried to cooperate with Detective Bemo and answer[ed] every question they gave me. Based upon Appellant’s assertions, defense counsel did not challenge the admissibility of Appellant’s statements. This was a reasonable decision. The mere fact that Appellant’s statements to the officers arose while seated in a police car or that the process took several hours does not amount to a constitutional violation. The record shows simply that Appellant complied with the request by authorities to remain at the scene for questioning. The record does not show that Appellant was under arrest, handcuffed, or otherwise subject to custodial interrogation such that would condition the admission of his statements at trial upon the administration of the Miranda warning and a subsequent waiver of rights. Counsel thus was not ineffective for failing to pursue this meritless claim. Appellant’s application for an evidentiary hearing on his ineffectiveness claim is DENIED. Appellant fails to show by clear and convincing evidence a strong possibility that counsel was ineffective for failing to utilize or identify the evidence made part of the application for evidentiary hearing. Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019);

Appellant has filed simultaneously with his brief in chief an application for evidentiary hearing on his ineffectiveness claim, pursuant to Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019). The application for evidentiary hearing is supported by a single document: an affidavit signed by Appellant in which he avers that none of the police officers he spoke with on May 23, 2014, ever informed him of the rights articulated in the Miranda warning.

Proposition One is denied.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s Application for Evidentiary Hearing on Sixth Amendment Claims is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5
2. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1 (14)
3. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
4. Taylor v. State, 2018 OK CR 6, I 6, 419 P.3d 265, 268
5. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S. Ct. 711, 714, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1977)
6. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S. Ct. at 1630
7. Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019)
8. Simpson v. State, 2010 OK CR 6, IT 53, 230 P.3d 888, 905-06

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5 - Child Neglect
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 - Parole Eligibility
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.11(B)(3)(b) - Rules of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Rules of Criminal Appeals

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:

• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)
• Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104, 131 S. Ct. 770, 787-88, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011)
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
• Taylor v. State, 2018 OK CR 6, I 6, 419 P.3d 265, 268
• Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S. Ct. 711, 714, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1977)
• Simpson v. State, 2010 OK CR 6, IT 53, 230 P.3d 888, 905-06