Jeremy L. Garza v The State Of Oklahoma

M-2017-739

Filed: May 1, 2018

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jeremy L. Garza appealed his conviction for Driving under the Influence (DUI). The conviction and sentence were reversed due to a violation of his right to counsel. Judge Kuehn noted that Garza did not effectively waive his right to a lawyer during the legal process, and no proper record existed to show he understood the dangers of representing himself. Judge Lumpkin, Judge Lewis, Judge Hudson, and Judge Rowland agreed with this decision.

Decision

The July 7, 2017, order accelerating the judgment and sentencing of Appellant, Jeremy L. Garza, in the District Court of Logan County, Case No. CM-2016-18, is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED with instructions to VACATE the Judgment and Sentence and to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing Appellant to appear pro se without a valid waiver of the right to counsel?
• did the trial court fail to ensure that the Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel during the acceleration proceedings?
• was there a sufficient record demonstrating that Appellant was informed of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation?
• did the proceedings comply with the constitutional requirements for waiver of counsel in misdemeanor cases?

Findings

• the trial court erred in allowing Appellant to appear pro se without a valid waiver of the right to counsel
• the July 7, 2017, order accelerating the judgment and sentencing is reversed
• the matter is remanded with instructions to vacate the Judgment and Sentence and to conduct further proceedings

M-2017-739

May 1, 2018

Jeremy L. Garza

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

KUEHN, JUDGE: In the District Court of Logan County, Case No. CM-2016-18, Appellant, Jeremy L. Garza, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to Driving under the Influence of Intoxicating Substances, a misdemeanor, in violation of 47 O.S.Supp.2013, § 11-902(A)(5). In accordance with a plea agreement, the Honorable Susan C. Worthington, Special Judge, on September 8, 2016, deferred the imposition of Judgment and Sentence for eighteen (18) months under written conditions of probation. On March 29, 2017, the State filed an Application to Accelerate Deferred Judgment alleging Appellant failed to report as directed and had not paid certain fines, costs, and supervision fees. Appearing pro se, Appellant stipulated to the State’s Application, and on July 7, 2017, Judge Worthington sustained the Application and sentenced Appellant to one year in the county jail and a fine of $600.00. Appellant timely perfected this appeal from the final order accelerating his deferred sentencing, and wherein he raises a single proposition of error: The trial court abused its discretion in allowing Appellant to appear pro se at the acceleration proceedings without a valid waiver of the right to counsel, in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, [and] Art. II, § 7, of the Oklahoma Constitution.

We FIND Appellant’s proposition of error to have merit. The record in this case contains only court minutes of his initial pro se appearance on the State’s Application and his subsequent stipulation to its allegations. Neither the minutes nor their corresponding docket entries reflect the presence of a court reporter. Transcripts for those proceedings are therefore unavailable. Other than noting his personal appearance pro se, neither court minute shows Appellant expressly waiving his right to counsel or that he was advised of his right to an attorney or the waiver thereof. Similarly lacking are the proceedings at sentencing. Consequently, the appeal record is both void of any expressed waiver by Appellant of his right to be represented by counsel in the acceleration proceedings and void of those disclosures and warnings necessary for a defendant’s valid waiver of counsel. A waiver of counsel is valid only if it is done knowingly and voluntarily. A record of the knowing and voluntary waiver is mandatory, and absent a sufficient record, waiver will not be found.

We have held repeatedly that the record must show the trial court advised the defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation to establish a record sufficient to support valid waiver of counsel. The trial court must explain to the defendant the disadvantages of a waiver, including a lack of knowledge and skill as to rules of evidence, procedure and criminal law. Anything less than a record which shows that the defendant rejected the offer of counsel with knowledge and understanding of the perils of self-representation is not waiver. Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, ¶ 10, 909 P.2d 783, 787 (citations omitted). These requirements are equally applicable in the context of misdemeanor prosecutions. See also Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, ¶ 6, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145 (While this Court has previously held that the right to counsel may be waived, the record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. This record is mandatory and anything less is not waiver.).

A person charged with a misdemeanor in a state court has an unconditional and absolute right to a lawyer. This right may be waived if done knowingly and intelligently. We have held that the record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which shows that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. This record is mandatory and anything else is not waiver. Bench U. State, 1987 OK CR 191, ¶ 4, 743 P.2d 140, 141 (citations omitted). Additionally, the State concedes in its Answer Brief that a defendant has a right to counsel in acceleration proceedings, and that there is no record showing a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel.

DECISION

The July 7, 2017, order accelerating the judgment and sentencing of Appellant, Jeremy L. Garza, in the District Court of Logan County, Case No. CM-2016-18, is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED with instructions to VACATE the Judgment and Sentence and to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 47 O.S.Supp.2013, § 11-902(A)(5)
2. Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, ¶ 10, 909 P.2d 783, 787
3. Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, ¶ 6, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145
4. Bench U. State, 1987 OK CR 191, ¶ 4, 743 P.2d 140, 141
5. Beller v. State, 1979 OK CR 64, ¶ 4, 597 P.2d 338, 339

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-902 (2013) - Driving under the Influence of Intoxicating Substances
• Okla. Stat. tit. 14 § 7 - Right to Counsel
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 (2018) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Waiver of Right to Counsel

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:

• Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, ¶ 10, 909 P.2d 783, 787
• Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, ¶ 6, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145
• Bench U. State, 1987 OK CR 191, ¶ 4, 743 P.2d 140, 141
• Beller v. State, 1979 OK CR 64, ¶ 4, 597 P.2d 338, 339