Billy Joe Baldwin v The State Of Oklahoma
RE 2001-1070
Filed: Jul. 31, 2002
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Billy Joe Baldwin
Summary
Billy Joe Baldwin appealed his conviction for three crimes: Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, Feloniously Pointing a Weapon, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. His original conviction and sentence were for five years, with two years suspended, which means he didn't have to serve that time unless he broke the rules. Later, the state said he didn't follow the rules, and after a hearing, the judge decided Baldwin should serve three years in total, one year for each crime, to be served one after the other. However, Baldwin argued that this was unfair and against his rights. The court agreed that his sentences should be changed so he serves only one year for all the crimes at the same time, not one after the other. This case was sent back to the District Court to be handled according to the new decision. Judge Lumpkin did not participate in this decision, while other judges were in favor of the modification.
Decision
THEREFORE, the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences are AFFIRMED, but the sentences are MODIFIED to one year revoked with the remainder suspended, and are to run CONCURRENTLY, not consecutively. This matter is REMANDED to the District Court of Lincoln County for further proceedings consistent with this Order. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the Honorable Paul M. Vassar, District Judge, District Court of Lincoln County, as well as to counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Issues
- Was there a violation of statutory rights and constitutional protections against double jeopardy in the orders revoking suspended sentences?
- Did the trial judge properly modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively?
- Was the revocation of the suspended sentences based on a stipulation to the violation of probation terms?
- Did the appellate court have jurisdiction to remand the matter to the District Court for further proceedings?
Findings
- the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences are affirmed
- the sentences are modified to one year revoked with the remainder suspended
- the sentences are to run concurrently, not consecutively
- the matter is remanded to the District Court of Lincoln County for further proceedings consistent with this Order
RE 2001-1070
Jul. 31, 2002
Billy Joe Baldwin
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
OPINION
ORDER GRANTING APPEAL, MODIFYING SENTENCE AND REMANDING MATTER TO DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Appellant pled guilty in the District Court of Lincoln County January 21, 1999, in Case No. CF-98-64 to Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, in Case No. CF-98-91 to Feloniously Pointing Weapon, and in Case No. CF-98-96 to Unauthorized Use of Vehicle, and in each case Appellant was sentenced to five years with all except the first two years suspended, to be served concurrently. The State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence in each case on June 28, 2001. Following a hearing August 29, 2001, Appellant having stipulated to the violation of his suspended sentences, the trial judge found Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation in each case and revoked in part. Appellant was ordered to serve three years, one year for each case to run consecutively. The trial judge also ordered the last two years of Appellant’s sentences to be suspended in each case. Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following proposition of error: The orders revoking suspended sentence in CF-1998-64, CF-1998-91, and CF-1998-96, must be modified because the terms imposed therein violate Mr. Baldwin’s statutory rights and constitutional protections against double jeopardy. The State responded: The Defendant’s contention has merit; the orders revoking suspended sentence in CF-1998-64, CF-1998-91 and CF-1998-96, should be modified to run concurrently. We agree. As we held in Marutzky V. State, 1973 OK CR 398, 1 5, 514 P.2d 430, [t]he consequence of judicial revocation is to execute a penalty previously imposed in the judgment and sentence.
THEREFORE, the revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentences are AFFIRMED, but the sentences are MODIFIED to one year revoked with the remainder suspended, and are to run CONCURRENTLY, not consecutively. This matter is REMANDED to the District Court of Lincoln County for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
The Clerk of this Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the Honorable Paul M. Vassar, District Judge, District Court of Lincoln County, as well as to counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 31st day of July , 2002.
NOT PARTICIPATING
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge
CHARLESA JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge
PARTICIPATING
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge
STEVE LILE, Judge
ATTEST: Clerk
Footnotes:
- Marutzky V. State, 1973 OK CR 398, 1 5, 514 P.2d 430
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:
- Marutzky v. State, 1973 OK CR 398, I 5, 514 P.2d 430