Natalie Blades v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2005-1032

Filed: Jul. 26, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Natalie Blades appealed her conviction for violating probation. Conviction and sentence were upheld, but the court decided that her sentences should run at the same time instead of one after the other. Judge Charles A. Johnson dissented.

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2001-323 and CF-2000-166 in the District Court of Jackson County should be AFFIRMED, but REMANDED to the District Court to amend the orders to reflect that the sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued forthwith upon the filing of this decision with the Clerk of this Court. IT IS so ORDERED.

Issues

• Was there an error in ordering the revoked sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently?
• Did the imposition of restitution for crimes with which Appellant was neither charged nor convicted exceed the scope of Oklahoma statute?

Findings

• The court erred in ordering the revoked sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently.
• The issue of restitution was not properly before the court for appeal and cannot be dismissed.

RE-2005-1032

Jul. 26, 2006

Natalie Blades

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ORDER AFFIRMING REVOCATION OF SUSPENDED SENTENCES, BUT REMANDING TO RUN THE SENTENCES CONCURRENTLY

The Appellant, Natalie Blades, has appealed to this Court from an order of the District Court of Jackson County, entered by the Honorable Richard B. Darby, District Judge, revoking her suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2001-323 and CF-2000-166.

In Case No. CF-2000-166, on July 25, 2000, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Uttering a Forged Instrument, and was sentenced to a term of five (5) years, with all except the first six (6) months suspended under rules and conditions of probation. In Case No. CF-2001-323, on May 28, 2002, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Uttering a Forged Instrument, and was sentenced to a term of five (5) years, with all except the first four (4) months suspended, the four (4) months to be served in the Jackson County Jail, with credit for time served since February 11, 2002.

On August 28, 2003, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences in both cases. The application alleged Appellant had violated probation by committing the crime of Aggravated Assault on a Peace Officer in Collingsworth, TX, and by failing to pay restitution. On January 26, 2004, the hearing on the application to revoke was held before Judge Darby. At the start of the hearing, Appellant stipulated to the application to revoke, but asked to be heard in mitigation. Judge Darby determined that Appellant’s stipulation was knowingly entered. Judge Darby then heard evidence and arguments before revoking Appellant’s suspended sentences in full, and ordered them to be served consecutively.

In this appeal, Appellant raises two propositions of error. She first claims the trial court erred in ordering the revoked sentences to run consecutively, when a previous order suspending sentence ordered by implication that the sentences were to be served concurrently. The second proposition contends the imposition of restitution for crimes with which Appellant was neither charged nor convicted was outside the scope of the Oklahoma statute and requires dismissal.

We agree with Appellant that terms in her Judgment and Sentence in Case No. CF-2001-323 specified that it run concurrently with her sentence in Case No. CF-2000-166. The Judgment and Sentence, and the Rules and Conditions attached, state that Appellant was to receive credit for time served since, and thus that the sentence began on, February 11, 2002. The Plea of Guilty – Summary of Facts form also states sentencing shall be imposed instanter, and discussions in the transcript of the sentencing hearing indicate the sentence started on February 11, 2002. Moreover, 22 O.S.2001, § 991a(A)(1)(e) allows confinement in the county jail at any time during the suspended sentence, thus Appellant’s confinement and her suspended sentence began in accordance with the statute on February 11, 2002. Because Appellant’s sentence in Case No. CF-2000-166 was running during the same time period, the sentences were running concurrently.

Finally, the State has cited nothing which would allow a sentence to begin, then stop, and then re-start at a later time. The State does argue that because Appellant’s Judgment and Sentence in Case No. CF-2001-323 does not expressly state that it is to run concurrently with the sentence in Case No. CF-2000-166, then by operation of law the sentences are to be served consecutively. However, none of the authority cited by the State in support of its argument actually requires the word ‘concurrent’ to be stated in the Judgment and Sentence. Appellant’s Judgment and Sentence specifies it is to run concurrently with the sentence in Case No. CF-2000-166 through other terms stated in the Judgment and Sentence.

We find that the District Court’s orders revoking Appellant’s suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2001-323 and CF-2000-166 should be amended to reflect the sentences run concurrently, rather than consecutively, with each other.

Appellant’s second proposition, concerning the imposition of restitution in Case No. CF-2000-161, is not properly before us. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order. Rule 1.2(D)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006). If Petitioner had asserted this issue prior to the entry of her guilty plea, or in direct appeal proceedings from her Judgment and Sentence, the record could have been properly documented. Moreover, Petitioner entered her plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which she specifically agreed to pay the restitution amounts of which she now complains, thus she is not now entitled to have those agreed upon restitution amounts dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2001-323 and CF-2000-166 in the District Court of Jackson County should be AFFIRMED, but REMANDED to the District Court to amend the orders to reflect that the sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued forthwith upon the filing of this decision with the Clerk of this Court.

IT IS so ORDERED.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 22 O.S.2001, § 991a(A)(1)(e)
2. Rule 1.2(D)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006)
3. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991a(A)(1)(e) - Confinement during suspended sentence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 - Rule 1.2(D)(4) - Scope of review in revocation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 - Rule 3.15 - Mandate issuance

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.