Franklin Savoy Combs v The State Of Oklahoma

M-2011-1083

Filed: Jul. 1, 2013

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Franklin Savoy Combs

Summary

Franklin Savoy Combs appealed his conviction for Resisting an Officer. Conviction and sentence were reversed and sent back for a new trial. Judge C. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an error by the trial court in failing to warn Appellant of the dangers of self-representation?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in reviewing Appellant's waiver of counsel?
• Was Appellant's waiver of counsel made knowingly and voluntarily on the record?
• Was there sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant understood the implications of waiving his right to counsel?
• Should any doubts regarding the waiver of counsel be resolved in Appellant's favor?

Findings

• the trial court erred in failing to warn Appellant of the dangers of self-representation
• Appellant did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his constitutional right to counsel
• the Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is reversed and remanded for a new trial

M-2011-1083

Jul. 1, 2013

Franklin Savoy Combs

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

MICHAEL S. RICHIE LUMPKIN, JUDGE:

Following a jury trial on November 10, 2011, Appellant, Franklin Savoy Combs, was found guilty in the District Court of Hughes County, Case No. CM-2011-71, of Resisting an Officer, a misdemeanor, in violation of 21 O.S. 2011, § 268. The Honorable B. Gordon Allen, Associate District Judge, sentenced Appellant on November 29, 2011, to ninety days in the Hughes County Jail and a fine of $300.00. Appellant appeals from the Judgment and Sentence imposed.

In Appellant’s third proposition of error he argues the trial court erred when it failed to warn Appellant of the dangers of self-representation. After reviewing the record on appeal we agree. This Court must determine if the trial court abused its discretion when reviewing the Appellant’s waiver of counsel. Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1, I 18, 271 P.3d 67, 75. Appellant must have knowingly and voluntarily entered a waiver of his right to counsel, on the record, before representing himself in his Hughes County jury trial. Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 4, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145.

Reviewing the totality of the circumstances in this case there is insufficient evidence to show Appellant’s waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary. Braun U. State, 1995 OK CR 42, I 12, 909 P.2d 983, 988. Anything less than a record establishing that the trial court informed the Appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of representing himself is insufficient to constitute a valid waiver of counsel. Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, I 10, 909 P.2d 783, 788. A record is mandatory. Id.

Before this Court will allow Appellant to suffer the consequences of his decision to waive his right to counsel it must be satisfied the Appellant knew what he was doing when he waived counsel. Coleman v. State, 1980 OK CR 75, I 8-9, 617 P.2d 243, 246. Any doubts regarding this waiver of counsel must be resolved in the Appellant’s favor. Swanegan v. State, 1987 OK CR 180, I 6, 743 P.2d 131, 132.

Based on the facts and circumstances in this case we cannot find the Appellant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to counsel. Lineberry U. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 4, 668 P.2d 1144, 1146. Finding merit to Appellant’s third proposition of error, we do not find it necessary to address Appellant’s remaining propositions of error.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1, I 18, 271 P.3d 67, 75.
2. Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 4, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145.
3. Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, I 12, 909 P.2d 983, 988.
4. Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, I 10, 909 P.2d 783, 788.
5. Coleman v. State, 1980 OK CR 75, I 8-9, 617 P.2d 243, 246.
6. Swanegan v. State, 1987 OK CR 180, I 6, 743 P.2d 131, 132.
7. Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 4, 668 P.2d 1144, 1146.
8. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2013).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 268 - Resisting an Officer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Mandate Procedures
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Waiver of Counsel
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.10 - Dangers of Self-Representation

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:

• Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1, I 18, 271 P.3d 67, 75
• Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 4, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145
• Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, I 12, 909 P.2d 983, 988
• Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, I 10, 909 P.2d 783, 788
• Coleman v. State, 1980 OK CR 75, I 8-9, 617 P.2d 243, 246
• Swanegan v. State, 1987 OK CR 180, I 6, 743 P.2d 131, 132
• Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 4, 668 P.2d 1144, 1146