Ernie Joe Fields v State Of Oklahoma

RE-2000-1209

Filed: Jan. 7, 2002

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Ernie Joe Fields appealed his conviction for kidnapping. Conviction and sentence were affirmed, but the court ordered that his sentence for kidnapping be changed from nine years to seven years. Judge Reta M. Strubhar dissented.

Decision

The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. There was sufficient evidence presented at the revocation hearing to find Appellant had violated the terms of the protective order, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence. McCaskey v. State, 1989 2 OK CR 63, 781 P.2d 836; Frick v. State, 1973 OK CR 172, 509 P.2d 135. However, we find merit in Appellant's claim that he could not have received a nine (9) year sentence on Count I, Case No. CF-91-3546. As admitted by the State in its response to Appellant's Application for Accelerated Docket (Fast Track), the maximum sentence Appellant could receive for Count I, Case No. CF-91-3546 is seven (7) years. IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, by a vote of five (5) to zero (0) that the order revoking of Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-91-3546 and CF-97-926 in the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter be remanded to the District Court of Tulsa County, the Honorable Tom Gillert, District Judge, for entry of an order nunc pro tunc showing that Appellant is sentenced to seven (7) years for his conviction in Case No. CF-91-3546, Count I, Kidnapping instead of nine (9) years as reflected in the court's order entered March 26, 2000. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Issues

• Was there an error in sentencing Mr. Fields to nine years on Count I instead of the maximum seven years?
• Did insufficient evidence support the claim that Mr. Fields violated the emergency protective order issued in 1994?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in revoking Mr. Fields' suspended sentences despite the claims about the protective order?
• Was Mr. Fields denied his statutory and constitutional right to due process due to the State's failure to file an application to revoke his suspended sentence?

Findings

• The trial court erred in sentencing Appellant to nine years on Count I, as the maximum sentence was seven years.
• Evidence was sufficient to support the violation of the protective order.
• The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence.
• Appellant was not denied his statutory and constitutional right to due process regarding the application to revoke his suspended sentence.

RE-2000-1209

Jan. 7, 2002

Ernie Joe Fields

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

On January 24, 1992, Appellant pled guilty to Kidnapping, Rape, Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, and Oral Sodomy in Case No. CF-91-3546 in the District Court of Tulsa County. Appellant was sentenced to 10, 12, 10 and 10 years, respectively, on these counts, all suspended, all sentences to be served concurrently.

On April 18, 1994, a permanent protective order was entered against Appellant pursuant to the request of Carolina Fields, in Case No. PO-1994-822 from the District Court of Tulsa County. On February 9, 1995, Appellant’s suspended sentences were partially revoked. On October 1, 1997, Appellant was convicted of placing body wastes/fluids on a government employee, Case No. CF-97-926, in the District Court of Tulsa County. Appellant was sentenced to two (2) years, suspended.

On January 26, 1999, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences in Case No. CF-97-926. An application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences in Case No. CF-91-3546 was filed March 24, 2000. A hearing was held, and Appellant’s suspended sentences in both cases, on all counts, were revoked in full. From this Judgment and Sentence, Appellant appeals.

On appeal Appellant raised four propositions of error:
1. The trial court erred in sentencing Mr. Fields to nine years on Count two (sic) because the maximum sentence Mr. Fields could be sentenced to was seven years;
2. Insufficient evidence was presented that Mr. Fields violated an emergency protective order issued in 1994, as such an order would have expired prior to 1998, when he allegedly violated the order;
3. Revocation of Mr. Fields’ suspended sentences constituted an abuse of discretion because, even if the protective order was in effect, the State did not prove that Mr. Fields’ actions violated the terms of the protective order in this case;
4. Appellant was denied his statutory and constitutional right to due process when the State failed to file an application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence.

Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(2), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2000) this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. The propositions or issues were presented to this Court in oral argument December 20, 2001, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court.

The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. There was sufficient evidence presented at the revocation hearing to find Appellant had violated the terms of the protective order, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s suspended sentence. McCaskey v. State, 1989 2 OK CR 63, 781 P.2d 836; Frick v. State, 1973 OK CR 172, 509 P.2d 135. However, we find merit in Appellant’s claim that he could not have received a nine (9) year sentence on Count I, Case No. CF-91-3546. As admitted by the State in its response to Appellant’s Application for Accelerated Docket (Fast Track), the maximum sentence Appellant could receive for Count I, Case No. CF-91-3546 is seven (7) years.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, by a vote of five (5) to zero (0) that the order revoking of Appellant’s suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-91-3546 and CF-97-926 in the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter be remanded to the District Court of Tulsa County, the Honorable Tom Gillert, District Judge, for entry of an order nunc pro tunc showing that Appellant is sentenced to seven (7) years for his conviction in Case No. CF-91-3546, Count I, Kidnapping instead of nine (9) years as reflected in the court’s order entered March 26, 2000. IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 7th day of January, 2002.

GARY L. LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge
STEVE LILE, Judge

ATTEST: Clerk

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2(A)(2)
3. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2(F)
4. McCaskey v. State, 1989 2 OK CR 63, 781 P.2d 836
5. Frick v. State, 1973 OK CR 172, 509 P.2d 135
6. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 91-3546

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentences for felony convictions
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1051 - Revocation of suspended sentences
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - Rule for appeals

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:

• McCaskey v. State, 1989 2 OK CR 63, 781 P.2d 836
• Frick v. State, 1973 OK CR 172, 509 P.2d 135