Jeffrey Allen Holden v State Of Oklahoma

RE-2007-1233

Filed: Apr. 22, 2009

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Jeffrey Allen Holden

Summary

Jeffrey Allen Holden appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape and one count of First Degree Burglary. His conviction and sentence were for a total of forty-five years, with the first twenty-five years not suspended for the rapes and twenty years for the burglary. Judge Tammy Bass LeSure revoked two years of his suspended sentences after a revocation hearing. Holden argued that the hearing was held too late, outside the required twenty days after his guilty plea, which meant the court shouldn’t have been able to hear the case. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Holden and decided to reverse the lower court's ruling, instructing it to dismiss the revocation. Judges agreed with this conclusion.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County in Case No. CF-2005-5216 is REVERSED with instructions to DISMISS the State's Application to Revoke. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18 App. (2009), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was the hearing to revoke the suspended sentence held within the required twenty (20) days after Holden's initial arraignment?
• Did the District Court lose jurisdiction to hear the State's application to revoke due to the lack of a timely hearing?
• Should Holden's request to dismiss the application for revocation have been granted?

Findings

• The District Court lost jurisdiction to hear the State's application to revoke.
• The revocation hearing was not timely held.
• The District Court should have granted Holden's request to dismiss the application.
• The order of the District Court is reversed with instructions to dismiss the State's Application to Revoke.

RE-2007-1233

Apr. 22, 2009

Jeffrey Allen Holden

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

On October 16, 2007, Appellant Holden, represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to two (2) counts of First Degree Rape and one (1) count of First Degree Burglary in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2005-5216. He was sentenced to forty-five (45) years, with all but the first twenty-five (25) years suspended for each of the rape counts, and twenty (20) years for the burglary. On October 2, 2007, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging Holden violated the terms and conditions of his probation by mailing a letter to the victim. Holden was incarcerated at the time of the violation. Holden’s initial arraignment was conducted October 23, 2007. He entered a plea of not guilty, and his revocation hearing was set for November 7, 2007. Holden appeared on November 7, 2007, as did the State, but neither the State nor the District Court had the matter docketed for that date. On November 21, 2007, Holden was arraigned a second time, and again entered a plea of not guilty. His revocation hearing was set for December 5, 2007. Upon appearing at the revocation hearing, Holden sought dismissal of the State’s application, alleging his revocation hearing was not conducted within twenty (20) days of the entry of his guilty plea, as required by statute. See, 22 O.S.Supp.2005 991b(A). The District Court of Oklahoma County, the Honorable Tammy Bass LeSure, refused to dismiss the application with prejudice, and advised the State that if it chose to, it could re-file the application. The State requested permission to simply proceed with the hearing, and that request was granted. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Bass LeSure revoked two (2) years each of Holden’s suspended sentences for each of the rape counts. From this judgment and sentence, Holden appeals.

This case raises the single issue of whether the District Court lost jurisdiction to hear the State’s application to revoke when the revocation hearing was not held within twenty (20) days of Holden’s initial arraignment. We find that it did. We REVERSE the District Court’s finding and REMAND the matter to the District Court with instructions to DISMISS.

Both parties agree that Holden was initially arraigned and entered a not guilty plea on October 23, 2007. It is also agreed that an initial date of November 7, 2007 was set for the revocation hearing. For some reason, that date was not docketed on the District Court’s calendar, and the State received no notice of the hearing. Holden was arraigned for a second time on November 21, 2007, and a second revocation hearing was set for December 5, 2007, at which time Holden’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was denied by the District Court and two (2) years of his suspended sentences were revoked.

The statute addressing revocation of suspended sentences is quite clear. The hearing revoking a defendant’s suspended sentence must be held within twenty (20) days of the date the defendant enters his guilty plea, unless waived by both the defendant and the State. 22 O.S.Supp.2005 § 991b(A). The State is allowed one opportunity to dismiss and re-file the application, for good cause shown, within forty-five (45) days of the date of the dismissal of the revocation petition. The issue here is not one of whose fault resulted in the failure of the parties to ensure that a timely hearing was conducted. The question is whether the hearing was timely held. It was not. There is no provision in the statute allowing for a second arraignment when the parties fail to timely hold a revocation hearing within twenty (20) days of the initial arraignment. The State was given the opportunity to dismiss and re-file the application, but it chose not to do so. Instead, it requested permission to proceed with the hearing because its witnesses were present. Holden’s revocation hearing was not timely held. Holden’s request to dismiss the application should have been granted. The District Court was without jurisdiction to hear the State’s application to revoke.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County in Case No. CF-2005-5216 is REVERSED with instructions to DISMISS the State’s Application to Revoke. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18 App. (2009), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 22 O.S.Supp.2005 § 991b(A).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b(A) - Revocation of Suspended Sentence

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.