Angelica C. Coats v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2017-970

Filed: Apr. 4, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Angelica C. Coats appealed her conviction for several crimes, including the possession of dangerous substances and obstructing an officer. Her conviction and sentence were for a total of five years in prison. Judge Kuehn dissented from the opinion. In this case, Angelica pleaded guilty in 2013, and her punishment was put on hold for five years as long as she followed certain rules. However, the state said she broke the rules because she didn't pay her required fees. After not appearing in court twice, she was found guilty of these violations and was given a five-year sentence. Angelica argued that the court should not have punished her so harshly just for not being able to pay. The court decided that it was fair to convict her since she agreed that she missed her payments and failed to show why she couldn't pay them. Thus, they upheld her sentencing. Judge Kuehn, on the other hand, felt that the court didn’t properly check if Angelica could afford to pay and thought she was unfairly punished given her situation.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Mayes County accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2012-445 is AFFIRMED. 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 filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there an abuse of discretion in accelerating Appellant's probation based solely on her failure to pay supervision fees and Drug Court assessments?
• did the trial court make a proper finding regarding Appellant's willful failure to pay required fees and assessments?

Findings

• The court did not err in accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing based on her failure to pay supervision fees and Drug Court assessments.
• The evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Appellant violated the terms of her probation.
• The trial court did not abuse its discretion by convicting and sentencing Appellant in accordance with her agreement.

F-2017-970

Apr. 4, 2019

Angelica C. Coats

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant, Angelica C. Coats, appeals from the acceleration of her deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2012-445 in the District Court of Mayes County, by the Honorable Rebecca J. Gore, Special Judge. On June 24, 2013, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1: Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), felony; Count 2: Unlawful Use of Police Radio, felony; Count 3: Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana), misdemeanor; Count 4: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, misdemeanor; and Count 5: Obstructing an Officer, misdemeanor. Judgment and sentencing was deferred for a period of five years pursuant to rules and conditions of probation.

On October 9, 2013, the State filed an application to accelerate Appellant’s deferred sentencing alleging she violated probation by (1) failing to pay a $750.00 Drug Fund Assessment to the District Attorney’s Office; and (2) failing to pay monthly supervision fees of $40.00 to the District Attorney’s Office. On December 28, 2015, Appellant appeared before Judge Gore and stipulated to the violations alleged in the application to accelerate her deferred judgment and sentencing. Appellant stipulated pursuant to an agreement that she should be given time to get back into compliance with probation requirements, by paying $920.00 in District Attorney supervision fees and $725.00 to the Drug Court assessment fund. The agreement provided that if Appellant got back into compliance, the application to accelerate her deferred judgment and sentencing would be dismissed. If Appellant did not get back into compliance, she would be convicted and given concurrent sentences totaling five years. Appellant asked for 180 days to get into compliance. Judge Gore accepted the stipulation and recommendations, and ordered Appellant to reappear on June 21, 2016.

Appellant failed to appear on June 21, 2016, and again on August 15, 2017. On September 5, 2017, the sentencing hearing was held before Judge Gore. The State announced and Appellant acknowledged that she was behind and still owed $920.00 in District Attorney supervision fees and $720.00 in Drug Court assessments. Judge Gore accelerated Appellant’s deferred judgment and sentencing and convicted her of Count 1: Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), felony; Count 2: Unlawful Use of Police Radio, felony; Count 3: Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana), misdemeanor; Count 4: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, misdemeanor; and Count 5: Obstructing Officer, misdemeanor. Appellant was sentenced in accordance with the agreement to terms of five years on Counts 1 and 2; and to terms of one year in the Mayes County Jail on Counts 3, 4, and 5, with all sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed this appeal asserting one proposition of error:

PROPOSITION I: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ACCELERATING MS. COATS’ PROBATION BASED SOLELY ON HER FAILURE TO PAY SUPERVISION FEES AND THE DRUG COURT FUND ASSESSMENTS.

ANALYSIS
Appellant complains that the District Court made no finding that Appellant willfully failed to pay District Attorney supervision fees and Drug Court assessments. In this case, the State clearly presented evidence that Appellant had not paid the fees and assessments, and Appellant stipulated that she had not done so. Moreover, acceleration of Appellant’s deferred judgment and sentencing was continued for approximately six months based upon Appellant’s promise she would get back into compliance with her probation requirements. The State proved that Appellant failed to make required payments, and Appellant presented no evidence concerning why she had not paid or how she had made bona fide efforts to pay. Winbush v. State, 2018 OK CR 38, 7-12, 433 P.3d 1275, 1278-80; McCaskey v. State, 1989 OK CR 63, 4, 781 P.2d 836, 837; cf. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983) (Bearden and his wife both testified about their lack of income and assets and his repeated efforts to obtain work, evidence that was ignored by the Georgia courts). The District Court did not abuse its discretion by finding Appellant had violated requirements of her probation, and by convicting and sentencing her in accordance with her agreement.

DECISION
The order of the District Court of Mayes County accelerating Appellant’s deferred judgment and sentencing in Case No. CF-2012-445 is AFFIRMED. 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 filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Winbush, III, U. State, 2018 OK CR 38, II 7-12, 433 P.3d 1275, 1278-80;
2. McCaskey v. State, 1989 OK CR 63, I 4, 781 P.2d 836, 837;
3. Bearden U. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983);
4. Winbush U. State, 2018 OK CR 38, I 2-3, 433 P.3d 1275, 1280-81;
5. Bearden U. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S. Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983);

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Accelerated sentencing
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 (2011) - Rules of Criminal Procedure
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-801(B)(1) (2011) - Traffic regulations

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:

• Winbush v. State, 2018 OK CR 38, I 7-12, 433 P.3d 1275, 1278-80
• McCaskey v. State, 1989 OK CR 63, I 4, 781 P.2d 836, 837
• Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983)