Troy Wadell Davis v State Of Oklahoma
F-2018-145
Filed: Apr. 4, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Troy Wadell Davis appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine). Conviction and sentence were affirmed. Judge Kuehn dissented.
Decision
The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County terminating Appellant from Drug Court in Case Nos. CF-2015-4280 and CF-2017-316 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 sufficient proof from the State to terminate Davis from Drug Court?
- did the trial court fail to adequately address Davis's mental health issues during the termination hearing?
Findings
- Termination from Drug Court is affirmed.
- No abuse of discretion found in the trial court's decision regarding additional sanctions.
- No evidence presented to support claims of mental health issues affecting compliance with Drug Court.
- Failure to present mental health issues to the trial court limits arguments on appeal.
F-2018-145
Apr. 4, 2019
Troy Wadell Davis
Appellant
v
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
LUMPKIN, JUDGE: On June 23, 2015, Appellant Davis, represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to Count 1, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine) in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2015-4280. Sentencing was deferred for five (5) years, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On December 19, 2016, the State filed its second application to revoke¹ Davis’s suspended sentence. On March 27, 2017, Case No. CF-2015-4280 was transferred to the Oklahoma County Drug Court Program along with Davis’s new Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2017-316, wherein he was charged¹ with Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine). Davis entered a negotiated stipulation to the State’s acceleration application in Case No. CF-2015-4280 and a guilty plea to the possession charge in Case No. CF-2017-316. Sentencing in both cases was deferred pending Davis’s completion of the Oklahoma County Drug Court Program.² On January 17, 2018, the State filed an Application to Terminate Davis from Drug Court participation alleging multiple violations. On January 30, 2018, at the conclusion of the hearing on the State’s application, the Honorable Geary L. Walke, Special Judge, terminated Davis’s Drug Court participation and sentenced him as specified in his plea agreement. From this judgment and sentence, Davis appeals, raising the following propositions of error:
1. The State failed to meet its burden of proving that Mr. Davis should be terminated from Drug Court; and
2. Mr. Davis should not have been terminated from Drug Court because his mental health problems were never accurately addressed.
Davis’s termination from Drug Court participation is AFFIRMED. Prior to terminating a defendant from Drug Court, the District Court must find that the offender violated the terms and conditions of the plea agreement or performance contract, and that disciplinary sanctions have been insufficient to gain compliance. See 22 O.S.2011 § 471.7(E); Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 11, 990 P.2d 894, 898. The judge is to consider relapses and order increasing sanctions, except when the offender’s conduct requires revocation from the program. Id.; 22 O.S. § 471.7(E). Absent an abuse of discretion, this Court will not reverse a ruling of the District Court terminating a defendant from Drug Court. Hagar, id. Davis does not dispute that he violated the terms of his Drug Court contract, and admits that the State met its burden in proving those violations. Instead, at proposition one he claims that the State failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that additional sanctions would have been insufficient to gain his compliance with the program. Failure to consider additional sanctions, he argues, constitutes an abuse of discretion. The record in this case is quite clear: Davis simply refused to participate in the Drug Court Program. He only made appearances or complied with the contract terms when physically placed in a program or upon being arrested on a warrant after failing to appear or participate.³ During his ten month Drug Court tenure, Davis missed UAs on five separate occasions; he missed treatment on at least two occasions; he missed five court appearances; he did not return to the program voluntarily; he did not contact his public defender, the Drug Court coordinator, or any other parties for assistance in complying with his Drug Court contract; he did not appear for lab tests; and he did not attend treatment. In short, Davis did nothing as a Drug Court participant. Davis cannot now argue that the court failed to impose progressively increasing sanctions pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 471(E) when he deprived the court of that option by absconding from the program and refusing to participate. On the record presented in this case, we find no abuse of discretion in Judge Walke’s decision to terminate Davis’s Drug Court participation.
At proposition two, Davis argues the trial court erred by failing to address his mental health issues, which Davis alleges for the first time on appeal as the reason for failing to participate in Drug Court. This argument was not presented to the trial court and is subject only to plain error analysis. See, Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923; Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 23, 876 P.2d 690, 698. At the termination hearing, Davis argued he was confused as to how his Drug Court participation was affected by his transfer to North Care for a mental health evaluation, and that he received no instructions upon his return from that evaluation. Nowhere in the appeal record submitted to this Court does Davis explain or testify to the nature of his mental illness or the results of his mental health evaluation conducted at North Care. He provided the court with no evidence of mental illness; no evidence of a diagnosis; no evidence of treatment or therapy needed or suggested; no evidence of medication prescribed or recommended; how this alleged illness impacted his ability to comply with his Drug Court contract; or any other specifics supporting his mental illness claim. It is incumbent upon Davis to establish with the presentation of credible evidence a causal connection between his mental illness and his failure to comply with his Drug Court contract sufficient to show the court that he should not be terminated from the program. A general claim of mental illness, which is the only evidence presented in this record, is insufficient to establish either that Davis is mentally ill or that it was the cause of his non-compliant behavior. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order terminating Davis’s Drug Court participation.
DECISION
The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County terminating Appellant from Drug Court in Case Nos. CF-2015-4280 and CF-2017-316 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.
Footnotes:
- On December 19, 2016, the State filed its second application to revoke.
- The State's first acceleration application was filed February 12, 2016, but was dismissed upon Davis's agreement to a sanction of thirty (30) days incarceration in the Oklahoma County jail.
- Upon successful completion of Drug Court, the acceleration application in Case No. CF-2015-420 would be dismissed upon Davis's payment of $840 in probation fees, and in Case No. CF-2017-316 the charges would be dismissed.
- See 22 O.S.2011 § 471.7(E); Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 11, 990 P.2d 894, 898.
- Id.; 22 O.S. § 471.7(E).
- See, Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, I 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923; Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, "I 23, 876 P.2d 690, 698.
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 471.7(E) (2011) - Termination from Drug Court
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 471.7(E) - Drug Court Program
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:
No case citations found.