Pearlena Hall v The State Of Oklahoma
F-2018-1187
Filed: Oct. 31, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Pearlena Hall appealed her conviction for multiple charges, including larceny. Her conviction and sentence included four years in prison for two larceny charges and one year for the other charges. The case was decided by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which agreed with the lower court and affirmed the decision. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion.
Decision
The termination of Appellant from mental health court in Tulsa County District Court Case Nos. CF-2017-1785 and CF-2017-1889, 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 a violation of due process during the termination hearing from the mental-health court program?
- Did the failure of the state to file a new application to remove Appellant from the mental-health court deprive her of notice of the charges?
- Was it an abuse of discretion for the trial court to remove Appellant from the mental-health court program despite her compliance with previous assurances from the court?
Findings
- the court did not err in the termination hearing process
- the evidence was sufficient to support the termination from the mental-health court
- the appeal concerning due process was denied
- the termination of Appellant from mental health court is affirmed
F-2018-1187
Oct. 31, 2019
Pearlena Hall
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
On May 4, 2017, Appellant entered negotiated pleas of guilty to Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer (5th Offense) (21 D.S.Supp.2016, § 1731), Obstructing an Officer (21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 540) and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (63 O.S.2011, § 2-405 (B)) in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2017-1785. Appellant also entered a negotiated plea of guilty to Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer (21 O.S.2016, § 1731) in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2017-1889. Sentencing was delayed and Appellant entered the mental-health court program.
On May 17, 2018, the State filed a motion to remove Appellant from the program alleging she had committed a new crime. The motion also referenced a report indicating Appellant had committed a host of rules violations for which she had been sanctioned. Appellant confessed the allegations contained in the motion on June 5, 2018. The motion was heard by the Honorable April Seibert, Special Judge, on November 8, 2018. Judge Seibert granted the State’s motion and, consistent with the plea agreement, sentenced Appellant to four years imprisonment on each of the two larceny charges and to one year of confinement on each of the remaining charges. All counts were ordered to be served concurrently and various fines, fees and costs were also imposed.
In Appellant’s sole proposition of error on appeal, she contends the termination hearing failed to afford her the requisite level of due process. We disagree and affirm the district court’s order of termination. A decision to terminate a defendant’s participation in mental-health court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Tate v. State, 2013 OK CR 18, I 21, 313 P.3d 274, 281. The appeal from such a decision uses the same procedure as an appeal from termination from drug court. Id. Violation of a condition of a deferred sentence need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, I 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322.
At the termination hearing, if the defendant is found to have violated the terms of the plea agreement and disciplinary sanctions have not been successful in gaining compliance, the offender shall be revoked from the program and sentenced for the offense as provided in the plea agreement. 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 472. The hearing must afford the defendant at least minimum requirements of due process to include written notice of the violations and disclosure of the evidence, a hearing at which the defendant has an opportunity to be heard and to confront and cross-examine witnesses before a neutral and detached body, with a written statement of findings and conclusions. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).
Appellant contends the failure of the state to file a new application to remove her from mental-health court deprived her of notice of the charges and therefore deprived her of due process. Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, she was not removed for conduct for which she had no notice. Appellant was removed for committing a new crime. That allegation was contained in the State’s motion and that is the allegation Appellant confessed. Thereafter, the trial court, at least initially over the objection of the State, graciously extended the proceedings to allow Appellant additional opportunity to complete the program. Appellant has failed to demonstrate anything about this procedure that is inconsistent with the minimum requirements of due process imposed in revocation cases. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604.
An undercurrent of Appellant’s argument concerns an assurance from the court that she could remain in the program if she remained entirely compliant for 30 days. Because Appellant did so, she contends it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to remove her from the program. The proposition has no merit. Between August 30 and November 1, 2018, the date she was taken into custody, the case was continued several times. Nothing suggests these continuances were over the objection of the defense. In fact, the only thing the record discloses is that the State objected to the delay in sentencing that occurred November 1, 2018. Appellant could have insisted on an earlier sentencing date but, as far as the record discloses, she did not. When similar circumstances present in the context of revocation appeals and the application of the 20-day rule, we have held that a defendant cannot acquiesce in the delay of a hearing and/or participate in the continuance of a hearing and then seek to benefit from the delay on appeal. Grimes v. State, 2011 OK CR 16, IT 7, 251 P.3d 749, 753. This rationale is equally applicable here. Accordingly, the proposition of error is denied.
DECISION
The termination of Appellant from mental health court in Tulsa County District Court Case Nos. CF-2017-1785 and CF-2017-1889, 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:
- 21 D.S.Supp.2016, § 1731
- 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 540
- 63 O.S.2011, § 2-405 (B)
- 21 O.S.2016, § 1731
- Tate v. State, 2013 OK CR 18, I 21, 313 P.3d 274, 281
- Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, I 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322
- 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 472
- Morrissey U. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)
- Grimes U. State, 2011 OK CR 16, IT 7, 251 P.3d 749, 753
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1731 (Supp. 2016) - Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540 (Supp. 2015) - Obstructing an Officer
- Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-405 (2011) - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 472 (Supp. 2014) - Due Process in Revocation Hearings
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:
- Tate v. State, 2013 OK CR 18, I 21, 313 P.3d 274, 281.
- Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, I 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322.
- Morrissey U. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).
- Grimes U. State, 2011 OK CR 16, IT 7, 251 P.3d 749, 753.