Jason Lee Hunt v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2001-180

Filed: Jan. 9, 2002

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jason Lee Hunt appealed his conviction for violating probation. Conviction and sentence were affirmed. Charles A. Johnson, Reta M. Strubhar, and Steve Lile dissented.

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-98-166 in the District Court of Stephens County should be, and is hereby, AFFIRMED, and that the orders for reimbursement of jail expenses contained at pages 68 and 73 of the Original Record should be, and are hereby, STRICKEN IT IS SO ORDERED. WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this at day of January, 2002.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in determining Mr. Hunt's failure to pay probation fees without specific findings of fact regarding his ability to pay?
• Did Mr. Hunt's sixth amendment right of confrontation get denied?
• Did the trial court err by failing to determine incarceration costs with reasonable certainty and not establishing those costs on the record?
• Was the revocation of Mr. Hunt's suspended sentence excessive under the facts of the case?

Findings

• the court did not err in summarily finding Mr. Hunt willfully did not pay his probation fees
• Mr. Hunt was not denied his sixth amendment right of confrontation
• the court did not err by failing to determine incarceration costs within a reasonable certainty
• the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence was not excessive
• the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence is affirmed
• the orders for reimbursement of jail expenses are stricken

RE-2001-180

Jan. 9, 2002

Jason Lee Hunt

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

The Appellant, Jason Lee Hunt, has appealed to this Court from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Case No. CF-98-166 in the District Court of Stephens County, before the Honorable George W. Lindley, District Judge. In that case, Appellant pled guilty and was convicted of Unlawful Possession of Marihuana Second & Subsequent. He was sentenced to a term of five (5) years, with the sentence suspended under rules and conditions of probation.

On August 20, 2000, the District Court partially revoked Appellant’s suspended sentence, revoking sixty (60) days of the sentence and leaving the balance suspended. On January 25, 2001, the State filed the current application to revoke the suspended sentence alleging Appellant had violated probation by failing to report to his probation officer as specifically instructed; by failing to advise his probation officer of any change of local address and his residence; by failing to make any payment toward court cost since July and being $1,097 in arrears; and by failing to make all $40 monthly probation fee payments, paying $720 and being $360 in arrears on this obligation. The revocation hearing was conducted on February 12, 2001.

After hearing the evidence, Judge Lindley found Appellant’s violation of rules and conditions of probation was clear and positive, and revoked the balance of his suspended sentence in full. Appellant brings this appeal. Appellant raises four propositions of error. The first proposition contends the trial court abused its discretion in summarily finding Mr. Hunt willfully did not pay his probation fees without making any specific findings of fact regarding his ability to pay.

The second proposition claims Mr. Hunt was denied his sixth amendment right of confrontation. The third proposition claims the trial court erred by failing to determine incarceration costs within a reasonable certainty and by failing to establish the incarceration costs on the record thereby denying Appellant an opportunity to respond. The fourth proposition claims the District Court’s revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence was excessive under the facts of this case and should be modified.

Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(2) of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2001), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. The propositions or issues were presented to this Court in oral argument on December 20, 2001, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, this Court voted four to zero (4-0) to affirm the revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence, but to strike the two orders for reimbursement of jail expenses contained in the record. (O.R. 68, 73).

This Court found sufficient competent evidence was presented to support and justify the revocation of the entire balance of Appellant’s suspended sentence. This Court further found the orders for reimbursement of jail expenses were neither properly requested nor authorized by the District Court.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence in Case No. CF-98-166 in the District Court of Stephens County should be, and is hereby, AFFIRMED, and that the orders for reimbursement of jail expenses contained at pages 68 and 73 of the Original Record should be, and are hereby, STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge
CHRON S. CLANE, 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 § 18 (2001).

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:

No case citations found.