Sunday D. Garcia v The State Of Oklahoma
RE-2002-580
Filed: Sep. 12, 2003
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Sunday D. Garcia
Summary
Sunday D. Garcia appealed his conviction for obtaining money through a false check. Conviction and sentence were reversed, and the case was sent back for further proceedings. Steve Lile dissented.
Decision
The trial court's order accelerating Appellant's deferred sentence is reversed, and Appellant's matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Order. The trial court shall ensure Appellant is represented by counsel, and it shall comply with the provisions of 22 O.S.2001, § 1175.4 et seq., and proceed accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Issues
- was there a violation of Appellant's right to counsel during the acceleration of the deferred sentence proceedings?
- did the trial court properly conduct a post-evaluation competency hearing as required by law?
- was the trial court's acceptance of the competency evaluation report without a hearing a procedural error?
- did the State properly support its Application to Accelerate Sentence against the Appellant?
Findings
- the court erred
- Appellant's matter remanded for further proceedings
- the trial court shall ensure Appellant is represented by counsel
- the trial court shall comply with the provisions of 22 O.S.2001, § 1175.4 et seq.
RE-2002-580
Sep. 12, 2003
Sunday D. Garcia
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
On March 9, 2001, in the District Court of Garfield County, Case No. CF-2000-86, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to one felony count of Obtaining Money, Property, or Valuable Thing by Means of False or Bogus Check. On that same date and pursuant to a plea agreement, the Honorable Ronald G. Franklin, District Judge, deferred Appellant’s sentencing for a period of five years conditioned upon written terms of probation. One-and-a-half months after Appellant was placed on probation, the State, on April 25, 2001, filed an Application to Accelerate Sentence.
On July 3, 2001, Appellant appeared without counsel before Judge Franklin on the Application to Accelerate. At this July 3rd appearance, Judge Franklin ordered a competency evaluation performed upon Appellant at the Wheatland Mental Health Center. On July 10, 2001, Appellant reappeared before Judge Franklin who reviewed the competency evaluation report from Wheatland. The evaluation indicated Appellant was competent to understand the proceedings and to assist in her defense. Judge Franklin apparently determined that Appellant was competent to proceed, and then appointed counsel for Petitioner and re-docketed the matter for a determination of the merits of the State’s Application to Accelerate.
On April 22, 2002, Appellant appeared with counsel, and an adjudicatory hearing upon the merits of the Application to Accelerate was conducted. At such hearing, Judge Franklin found Appellant violated her probation and that the violations warranted accelerating Appellant’s deferred sentencing. Having so found, Judge Franklin proceeded with sentencing and imposed a term of one-year in the County Jail and a fine of $2,500.00 against Appellant. From the April 22, 2002, order terminating her probation and accelerating her sentencing, Appellant brings this appeal.
On appeal, Appellant claims that error occurred at the July 10th hearing when the District Court accepted the ordered competency evaluation and resumed the acceleration proceedings, and that it did so without first having assured Appellant was represented by counsel and without having conducted the post-evaluation competency hearing required by 22 O.S.2001, § 1175.4. We agree. The trial court’s order accelerating Appellant’s deferred sentence is reversed, and Appellant’s matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Order. The trial court shall ensure Appellant is represented by counsel, and it shall comply with the provisions of 22 O.S.2001, § 1175.4 et seq., and proceed accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 12th day of September, 2003.
Chana CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Presiding Judge
STEVE LILE, Vice Presiding Judge
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge
OF NOT PARTICIPATING
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge Recuse
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge
ATTEST: Clerk
Footnotes:
- 22 O.S.2001, § 1175.4
- 22 O.S.2001, § 1175.4 et seq.
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1175.4 - Competency to stand trial
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.