Kathleen D. Williams v The State Of Oklahoma

RE 2000-1512

Filed: Oct. 30, 2001

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Kathleen D. Williams

Summary

Kathleen D. Williams appealed her conviction for Omission To Provide For A Minor. Conviction and sentence were reversed, and the case was sent back for further proceedings. Judge Strubhar dissented.

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, finding merit to Appellant's first proposition of error, that the revocation order of the District Court of Pottawatomie County is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Issues

• Was there a reversible error due to denial of Appellant's right to counsel free from conflict of interest?
• Did the trial court revoke the suspended sentence on less than competent evidence?
• Was the sentence excessive due to revocation of the suspended sentence on less than competent evidence?

Findings

• the court erred by allowing a counselor with a conflict of interest to represent Appellant
• the evidence was not sufficient to support the revocation of the suspended sentence
• the sentence is excessive and must be vacated due to incompetent evidence

RE 2000-1512

Oct. 30, 2001

Kathleen D. Williams

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ACCELERATED DOCKET ORDER REVERSING AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

On September 3, 1998, Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge of Omission To Provide For A Minor in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CRF-96-135, and received a deferred sentence. On July 8, 1999, The State’s motion to accelerate Appellant’s deferred sentence was granted. Judgment and Sentence was imposed February 9, 2000, and Appellant was given a four year suspended sentence. On September 18, 2000, the State filed a Motion To Revoke Suspended Sentence. Following a hearing November 9, 2000, Appellant’s four year suspended sentence was revoked in full. Appellant appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentence. Pursuant to Rule 11.2, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2000), the appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court.

Appellant raised the following propositions of error on appeal:
1. The trial court committed reversible error by revoking Appellant’s suspended sentence through proceedings that denied Appellant’s statutory and constitutional right to counsel free from conflict of interest.
2. Appellant’s sentence must be vacated because the trial court revoked the suspended sentence on less than competent evidence.
3. Appellant’s sentence is excessive and must be vacated because the trial court revoked Appellant’s suspended sentence in its entirety on less than competent evidence.

Oral argument was held October 18, 2001, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court.

In this case, not only was Appellant appointed counsel to represent her at the time she pled in 1998 and received a deferred sentence who was the First Assistant District Attorney in 1996 when Appellant was charged, Appellant was appointed counsel to represent her at the revocation hearing, who represented the State at Appellant’s arraignment on the State’s motion to vacate the deferred sentence in 1999. In Skelton v. State, 1983 OK CR 159, IT 5, 672 P.2d 671, we set out very clearly that such a situation creates a pervasive atmosphere of impropriety and [u]nder no circumstances should such a situation be allowed. The public has a right to absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the administration of justice. Id.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, finding merit to Appellant’s first proposition of error, that the revocation order of the District Court of Pottawatomie County is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 30th day of October 2001
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge
ATTEST: Clerk

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2
2. Skelton v. State, 1983 OK CR 159, IT 5, 672 P.2d 671

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

No Oklahoma statutes found.

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:

• Skelton v. State, 1983 OK CR 159, I 5, 672 P.2d 671