Keye Yarnell Smith v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-0851

Filed: Aug. 15, 2019

For publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Keye Yarnell Smith appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and obstructing an officer. His conviction and sentence involved six years in prison for the drug possession charge and one year in jail for the other two charges, but he could have received a deferred sentence if he successfully completed Drug Court. Smith was terminated from Drug Court after the state filed a motion due to his violations of program rules. The court found that the termination was fair and did not abuse its discretion in the decision. The judges agreed with this conclusion.

Decision

The granting of the State's Motion to Revoke Participation in Drug Court in Tulsa District Court Case No. CF-2014-6405 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion in terminating Appellant from the Drug Court program?
• Did the trial court provide adequate evidence for the termination decision?
• Was the inclusion of the Performance Contract and the Rules and Conditions of Drug Court necessary for the appeal?
• Did Appellant demonstrate that he was unaware of the allegations against him during the termination hearing?
• Is the decision to revoke or terminate participation from Drug Court subject to the discretion of the Drug Court judge?

Findings

• the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Appellant from Drug Court
• the evidence was sufficient to support the court's decision

F-2018-0851

Aug. 15, 2019

Keye Yarnell Smith

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

JOHN D. HADDEN

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:

On December 23, 2014, Appellant, Keye Yarnell Smith, was charged with Count 1 – Possession of Controlled Drug, a felony; Count 2 – Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor; and Count 3 – Obstructing an Officer, a misdemeanor in Tulsa County Case No. CF-2014-6405. Appellant plead guilty to all three counts on August 26, 2015. His sentencing was continued until August 17, 2018, pending completion of the Tulsa County Drug Court. If successful, Appellant would receive a four-year deferred sentence for Count 1 and a dismissal of Counts 2 and 3. If he withdrew or was terminated from the program, he would be sentenced to six years imprisonment plus one year of post-imprisonment supervision for Count 1, and one year in the County Jail for Counts 2 and 3. The sentences were to run concurrently, with credit for time served.

The State filed a Motion to Revoke Participation in Drug Court on July 5, 2018. Attached to the Motion was a VR/SL Report, which listed Appellant’s violations of the rules, conditions, and requirements of Drug Court and the sanctions received. The State requested Appellant be revoked because the Defendant’s conduct has shown this court that the Defendant is unwilling to follow the directives of the court and other members of the Drug Court team. Following a hearing on the State’s Motion, the Honorable April Seibert, Special Judge, ordered Appellant be terminated from the program and sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement. From this Judgment and Sentence Appellant appeals.

On appeal, Appellant argues the sole proposition of error that the District Court abused its discretion in terminating him from Drug Court. We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Appellant from the Drug Court program.

Appellant contends the lower court was in error primarily due to a lack of information. He argues that the Performance Contract and the Rules and Conditions of Drug Court are not included in the record. In this case, the report and testimony provide ample evidence to show that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Title 22 O.S. § 471.7(E) states:

The drug court judge shall recognize relapses and restarts in the program which are considered to be part of the rehabilitation and recovery process. The judge shall accomplish monitoring and offender accountability by ordering progressively increasing sanctions or providing incentives, rather than removing the offender from the program when relapse occurs, except when the offender’s conduct requires revocation from the program. Any revocation from the drug court program shall require notice to the offender and other participating parties in the case and a revocation hearing. 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. The statute continues to state that [n]othing in this provision shall be construed to limit the authority of the judge to remove an offender from the program. Id. § 471.7(G).

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, I 11, 990 P.2d 894, 898. This Court is therefore required to review the lower court’s decision for an abuse of that discretion. Id. Such a standard demands that Appellant prove the lower court came to a clearly erroneous conclusion one that is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts presented. State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, I 5, 298 P.3d 1192, 1194.

The parties provide no explanation for why these documents are not included in the record on appeal. At the termination hearing, Appellant announced he was ready to proceed without making an objection to the application. Appellant did not advise the trial court that he was unaware of the allegations serving as the basis for his termination. Nor did Appellant argue that he never signed a performance contract or that he did not understand the rules and conditions of Drug Court. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion.

DECISION

The granting of the State’s Motion to Revoke Participation in Drug Court in Tulsa District Court Case No. CF-2014-6405 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Title 22 O.S. § 471.7(E) states: The drug court judge shall recognize relapses and restarts in the program which are considered to be part of the rehabilitation and recovery process.
2. Id. § 471.7(G).
3. Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 11, 990 P.2d 894, 898.
4. State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, I 5, 298 P.3d 1192, 1194.
5. Pursuant to 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 (2019) - Drug Court Program
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - [No specific title provided in the text]

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, 898
• State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, I 5, 298 P.3d 1192, 1194