Steele Grayson Falen v The State of Oklahoma
F 2018-0398
Filed: May 23, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Steele Grayson Falen appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute and other related charges. The court affirmed his conviction and sentence of 20 years for the drug charge and additional sentences for the other charges. Judge Kuehn dissented.
Decision
The termination of Appellant from the Beckham County Drug Court Program in Beckham County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-106 and CF-2014-446 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 terminating Appellant from the Drug Court Program?
- Did the trial court properly consider the conditions of the plea agreement and performance contract before terminating the Appellant from Drug Court?
- Was the termination from the Drug Court Program justified based on the Appellant's alleged violations?
- Did the Drug Court judge follow the requirements of the Oklahoma Drug Court Act in revoking the Appellant from the program?
Findings
- the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Appellant from the Drug Court Program
- the termination of Appellant from the Beckham County Drug Court Program in Beckham County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-106 and CF-2014-446 is AFFIRMED
F 2018-0398
May 23, 2019
Steele Grayson Falen
Appellantv
The State of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
JOHN D. HADDEN LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:
Appellant, Steele Grayson Falen, was charged on March 14, 2013, in Beckham County District Court Case No. CF-2013-106 with Count 1 – Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute, a felony; Count 2- Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance, a misdemeanor; and Count 3 – Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. On January 23, 2014, Appellant entered a plea of guilty and was given a deferred sentence for a period of ten years on Count 1 and one year on Counts 2 and 3, with rules and conditions of probation, and with credit for six months served in treatment. The deferments were ordered to run concurrently.
On November 12, 2014, Appellant was charged in Beckham County District Court Case No. CF-2014-446 with Counts 1 and 2 – Burglary in the First Degree, a felony, and Count 3 – Possession of Burglary Tools, a misdemeanor. The State filed an application to accelerate Appellant’s deferred sentences in Case No. CF-2013-106 based upon these new charges in CF-2014-446. Pursuant to a plea agreement in Case Nos. CF-2013-106 and CF-2014-446, Appellant entered the Beckham County Drug Court Program on June 23, 2015. If Appellant failed to successfully complete the program, he agreed that he would be sentenced as follows: CF-2013-106 – 20 years on Count 1 and one year in the County Jail on Counts 2 and 3; CF-2014-446 – 20 years and a $500.00 fine on Counts 1 and 2 and one year in the County Jail on Count 3, with all counts and cases to run concurrently. If successful, the application to accelerate in CF-2013-106 would be dismissed and CF-2014-446 would be dismissed.
The State filed an application to terminate Appellant from Drug Court participation on February 21, 2018, alleging Appellant (1) left treatment early on January 18, 2018, and (2) was arrested with new charges on January 19, 2018.
Following a hearing on April 6, 2018, Judgment and Sentence was entered in Case No. CF-2013-106. Appellant was sentenced to 20 years on Count 1 and one year on Counts 2 and 3. In Case No. CF-2014-446, Appellant was sentenced to 20 years and a $500.00 fine on Counts 1 and 2 and one year in the County Jail on Count 3. The sentences were all ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant appeals from the termination from Drug Court. On appeal Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating him from the Drug Court Program. We find reversal is not required and affirm the trial court’s order to terminate Appellant from the Beckham County Drug Court Program. “At the revocation hearing, if the offender is found to have violated the conditions of the plea agreement or performance contract and disciplinary sanctions have been insufficient to gain compliance, the offender shall be revoked from the program and sentenced for the offense as provided in the plea agreement.” 22 O.S.2011, 471.7(E). The Oklahoma Drug Court Act, 22 O.S.2011, 471.7(E), requires the Drug Court judge to recognize relapses and restarts in the program by ordering progressively increasing sanctions or providing incentives rather than removing the offender from the program when a relapse occurs “except when the offender’s conduct requires revocation from the program.” Section 471.7(G) of Title 22 also directs: “Nothing in this provision shall be construed to limit the authority of the judge to remove an offender from the program and impose the required punishment stated in the plea agreement after application, notice, and hearing.” The decision to revoke or terminate from Drug Court lies within the discretion of the Drug Court judge. Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, IT 11, 990 P.2d 894. Appellant has not shown that his termination from the Drug Court program was an abuse of discretion.
DECISION
The termination of Appellant from the Beckham County Drug Court Program in Beckham County District Court Case Nos. CF-2013-106 and CF-2014-446 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.
Footnotes:
- 22 O.S.2011, 471.7(E)
- 22 O.S.2011, 471.7(G)
- Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, IT 11, 990 P.2d 894
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 471.7 (2011) - Oklahoma Drug Court Act
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 11, 990 P.2d 894