Lance Alfredo Coburn v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-83

Filed: Apr. 25, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Lance Alfredo Coburn appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. His conviction and sentence included being sent to jail for a total of ten years, with most of that time suspended. Justice Kuehn dissented.

Decision

The termination of Appellant's participation in the Kay County Drug Court Program in Kay County District Court Case Nos. CF-2012- 511, CF-2013-665, CF-2014-734, CM-2016-377 and CF-2016-588 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 by the trial court in terminating Appellant's participation in the Kay County Drug Court program?
• Did the trial court properly evaluate whether Appellant violated the terms of his performance contract?
• Was the trial court required to impose progressive sanctions before termination from the Drug Court program?
• Was Appellant's conduct sufficient to warrant revocation from the Drug Court program?

Findings

• the court did not err in terminating Appellant's participation in the Kay County Drug Court Program
• Appellant did not establish that the revocation was clearly against the facts in this case
• the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Appellant's participation based on failure to comply with the performance contract

F-2018-83

Apr. 25, 2019

Lance Alfredo Coburn

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: On August 15, 2012, Appellant was charged with Domestic Abuse – Assault and Battery, a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 644(C), in Kay County District Court Case No. CF-2012-511. On April 29, 2013, Appellant entered a plea of guilty in Case No. CF-2012-511 and was sentenced to four years imprisonment, with all four years suspended. On September 25, 2013, Appellant was charged with Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 1283, in Kay County District Court Case No. CF-2013-665. On October 22, 2014, Appellant was charged with Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 644(D)(1), in Kay County District Court Case No. CF-2014-734. A petition to revoke was filed in Case No. CF-2012-511. On May 4, 2015, Appellant entered a plea of guilty in Case Nos. CF-2013-665 and CF-2014-734 and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, with all but the first five months suspended, in each case. Five months of Appellant’s CF-2012-511 suspended sentence was revoked.

On August 9, 2016, Appellant was charged with Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, in violation of 63 O.S.2011, § 2-402, in Kay County District Court Case No. CM-2016-377 and with Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, in violation of 63 O.S.2011, § 2-402, (Count 1), Obstructing an Officer, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540, (Count 2), and Driving with License Cancelled, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, (Count 3), in Kay County District Court Case No. CF-2016-588. Amended Motions to Revoke were filed in Case Nos. CF-2012-511, CF-2013-665 and CF-2014-734. On December 5, 2016, Appellant entered a plea of guilty in Case Nos. CM-2016-377 and CF-2016-588 and was admitted to the Kay County Drug Court Program and the sentencing agreement was delayed pending successful completion of the Drug Court program. If successful, Appellant agreed he would be sentenced to one year imprisonment in Case No. CM-2016-377 and in Case No. CF-2016-588 he would be sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year imprisonment for Counts 2 and 3; with all of the sentences suspended. If successful, the petitions to revoke filed in Case Nos. CF-2012-511, CF-2013-665, and CF-2014-734 would be withdrawn. If Appellant withdrew or was terminated he agreed he would be sentenced in Case No. CM-2016-377 to serve one year imprisonment; in Case No. CF-2016-588 to serve fifteen years imprisonment, with all but the first ten years suspended, for Count 1 and one year imprisonment each for Counts 2 and 3; and his suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2012-511, CF-2013-665, and CF-2014-734 would be revoked in full.

On July 11, 2017, The State filed an application to terminate Appellant’s participation in Drug Court. Following a September 29, 2017, hearing on the State’s application the Honorable David R. Bandy, Associate District Judge, terminated Appellant’s participation in Drug Court and sentenced Appellant pursuant to his Drug Court plea agreement. Appellant appeals the termination of his Drug Court participation. Drug court termination cases are treated similar to acceleration proceedings. Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 12, 990 P.2d 894, 898; Rule 1.2(D)(6), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019). In revoking or terminating a defendant from a drug court program, the trial court makes a factual determination involving the existence of a violation of the terms of the plea agreement or performance contract and whether disciplinary sanctions have been insufficient to gain compliance. Hagar, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 11, 990 P.2d at 898; 22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E).

Judge Bandy was asked to determine whether Appellant had violated the terms of his performance contract. Id. In order to terminate, Judge Bandy looked at whether any single violation of Appellant’s performance contract was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Hagar, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 11, 990 P.2d at 898. The question is whether or not Judge Bandy abused his discretion in terminating Appellant’s participation. Id. In his sole proposition error, Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by terminating Appellant’s participation in the Kay County Drug Court program. Appellant maintains Judge Bandy abused his discretion by not attempting increasing sanctions. Appellant was sanctioned seven times but the sanctions were not increased in severity. Appellant cites Hagar and Section 471.7(E) for the proposition that “[a] termination should not have occurred without first trying progressive sanctions.” Hagar, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 15, 990 P.2d at 899; 22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E). Appellant omits the rest of this sentence, as included in Hagar and Section 471.7(E), which both go on to state “except when the offender’s conduct requires revocation from the program.” A trial court judge may terminate an individual from a drug court program for failure to cooperate. Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23, ¶ 5, 48 P.3d 110, 112. Appellant’s performance in Drug Court was similar to that of the defendant in Alexander. Id. The Oklahoma Drug Court Act states “[n]othing 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.” 22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(G).

Appellant has not established that this revocation was clearly against the facts in this case. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170. Appellant has not shown Judge Bandy abused his discretion in terminating his participation in the Drug Court.

DECISION

The termination of Appellant’s participation in the Kay County Drug Court Program in Kay County District Court Case Nos. CF-2012-511, CF-2013-665, CF-2014-734, CM-2016-377 and CF-2016-588 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. 21 O.S.2011, § 644(C)
2. 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 1283
3. 21 O.S.2011, § 644(D)(1)
4. 63 O.S.2011, § 2-402
5. 21 O.S.2011, § 540
6. 22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E)
7. 22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(G)
8. 22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E)
9. 21 O.S.2011, § 644(C)
10. 22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E)
11. 48 P.3d 110, 112
12. 274 P.3d 161, 170

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(C) (2011) - Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283 (2012) - Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(D)(1) (2011) - Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 (2011) - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540 (2011) - Obstructing an Officer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 471.7(E) (2011) - Drug Court Program Participation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 471.7(G) (2011) - Authority to Remove an Offender from Drug Court

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 12, 990 P.2d 894, 898
• Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 11, 990 P.2d at 898
• Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 11, 990 P.2d at 898
• Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 15, 990 P.2d at 899
• Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23, I 5, 48 P.3d 110, 112
• Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170