Ronnie Ray Shelton v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2006-1312

Filed: Jun. 5, 2008

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Ronnie Ray Shelton appealed his conviction for robbery by force. His conviction and sentence were for ten years, with all but three years suspended. The court decided to revoke his suspended sentence because he violated probation by committing a new crime: domestic assault and battery. The decision was affirmed, but the court also ordered a correction to reflect the actual sentence because of a clerical mistake. Judge C. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Bryan County revoking Ronnie Ray Shelton's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-1997-513 is AFFIRMED. This matter is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to enter an order nunc pro tunc to correct the revocation order by properly reflecting Shelton's Judgment and Sentence. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in revoking Shelton's suspended sentence in full?
• Was the evidence sufficient to establish that Shelton committed the crime of Domestic Assault and Battery?
• Did the trial court's order of revocation correctly reflect Shelton's Judgment and Sentence?
• Should the trial court correct the order revoking Shelton's suspended sentence due to a clerical error?
• Is the standard of proof for revocation of a suspended sentence a preponderance of the evidence?

Findings

• The court did not err in finding that Shelton violated the terms of his probation by committing Domestic Assault and Battery.
• The court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Shelton's suspended sentence.
• The revocation order will be corrected to reflect Shelton's actual Judgment and Sentence.

RE-2006-1312

Jun. 5, 2008

Ronnie Ray Shelton

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

On September 28, 1998, Appellant, Ronnie Ray Shelton, entered a plea of nolo contendere to Robbery by Force in Bryan County District Court Case No. CF-1997-513. He was sentenced to ten years incarceration, with all but three years suspended, pursuant to rules and conditions of probation. On July 3, 2006, the State filed an Application to Revoke Shelton’s suspended sentence alleging he had violated the rules and conditions of probation. The State specifically alleged Shelton had committed the new crimes of Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, Possession of a Controlled Substance and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in Bryan County District Court Case No. CF-2006-524. A hearing on the application was held on December 18, 2006, before the Honorable Rocky Powers, Associate District Judge. Shelton was represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Shelton violated the terms and conditions of his probation by committing the crime of Domestic Assault and Battery and revoked in full his suspended sentence.

From that order of revocation, Shelton has perfected this appeal. In his only assignment of error, Shelton contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his sentence in full. This Court’s review of an appeal from the revocation of a suspended sentence is limited to the validity of the revocation order. A violation of a suspended sentence need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A District Court’s decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or in part is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard.

Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find the preponderance of the evidence established Shelton committed the crime of Domestic Assault and Battery. A revocation is proper even if only one violation is proved. We find no abuse of discretion. Shelton’s Judgment and Sentence in Case No. CF-1997-513 reflects he was sentenced to ten years incarceration, with all but three years suspended. The District Court’s order of revocation states Shelton received a ten year sentence, with all but the first seven years suspended. The State concedes Shelton’s argument that the order revoking his suspended sentence should be corrected to reflect the actual Judgment and Sentence. This is obviously a clerical error and we DIRECT the trial court to enter an order nunc pro tunc, reflecting Shelton’s correct Judgment and Sentence.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Bryan County revoking Ronnie Ray Shelton’s suspended sentence in Case No. CF-1997-513 is AFFIRMED. This matter is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to enter an order nunc pro tunc to correct the revocation order by properly reflecting Shelton’s Judgment and Sentence. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

JEFF CLARK
S. GAIL GUNNING
125 NORTH THIRD
DURANT, OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL

JULIE NAIFEH
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
THOMAS LEE TUCKER
117 NORTH THIRD
DURANT, OKLAHOMA
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.E. 21 ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, J.

LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur
C. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: Concur
CHAPEL, J.: Concur
LEWIS, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18
2. Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, H 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322
3. Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, I 6, 675 P.2d 451, 453
4. McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, 740 P.2d 744
5. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18
6. Rule 3.5(A)(5), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008)
7. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008)

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:

• Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, I 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322
• Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, I 6, 675 P.2d 451, 453
• McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, 740 P.2d 744