Jason Lee Webb v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2010-10

Filed: Apr. 5, 2011

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jason Lee Webb appealed his conviction for a violation of probation. The conviction and sentence were modified from five years to four years and three hundred forty-four days. Judge Clancy Smith was involved in the original case, and all judges except Smith agreed with the decision.

Decision

This Court finds that the revocation of five years of Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2005-5009 in the District Court of Tulsa County should be, and is hereby, MODIFIED to revocation of four years and three hundred forty-four days. The District Court is directed to enter a revised Order Revoking Suspended Sentence in accordance with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2011), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an error in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence for five years?
• Did the District Court wrongly calculate the time served that should be credited to Appellant's sentence?
• Was Appellant entitled to day-for-day credit for the time spent under the supervision of the Office of Juvenile Affairs?
• Should Appellant's sentence be modified based on the correct application of the Youthful Offender Act?

Findings

• the court erred in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence for five years
• the revocation of the suspended sentence is modified to four years and three hundred forty-four days
• the District Court is directed to enter a revised Order Revoking Suspended Sentence

RE-2010-10

Apr. 5, 2011

Jason Lee Webb

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Appellant appeals from the revocation of five years of his suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2005-5009 in the District Court of Tulsa County, by the Honorable Clancy Smith, District Judge. Appellant was charged as a Youthful Offender, pursuant to 10 O.S.2001, § 7306-2.6(A)(9), with the offense of Lewd Molestation. On December 21, 2005, he entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to eight years as a Youthful Offender. On April 3, 2008, the State filed a motion to bridge Appellant from the Youthful Offender system to the custody of the Department of Corrections. On December 22, 2008, the District Court granted the State’s motion to bridge, and gave Appellant a suspended sentence of eight years, with credit for time served while in the custody of Office of Juvenile Affairs since December 1, 2005. On August 6, 2009, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence alleging he violated probation by committing the offense of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, as charged in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2009-3424. On September 18, 2009, the State filed an amended application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence adding alleged violations that he had failed to refrain from entering or loitering around beer taverns, and that he had been discharged from and failed to complete sex offender treatment due to non-compliance.

The hearing on the applications to revoke was held before Judge Smith on December 21, 2009. After hearing the evidence and arguments, Judge Smith found Appellant had violated probation, and revoked five years of his suspended sentence. Appellant asserts one proposition of error in this appeal. Appellant claims the District Court erred in revoking Appellant’s suspended sentence for five years. The State agrees that Appellant’s sentence must be modified. The Youthful Offender Act requires that Appellant be given day-for-day credit for the time spent in the custody or under the supervision of the Office of Juvenile Affairs. 10 O.S.Supp.2008, § 7306-2.10(D) (now 10A O.S.Supp.2010, § 2-5-210(D)). Appellant was either in the custody or under the supervision of the Office of Juvenile Affairs on his Youthful sentence from December 1, 2005, until December 22, 2008. When given credit for those three years and twenty-one days against his eight year sentence, Appellant’s adult suspended sentence totaled four years and three hundred forty-four days. Thus, he cannot be revoked for a full five years.

DECISION

This Court finds that the revocation of five years of Appellant’s suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2005-5009 in the District Court of Tulsa County should be, and is hereby, MODIFIED to revocation of four years and three hundred forty-four days. The District Court is directed to enter a revised Order Revoking Suspended Sentence in accordance with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2011), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 10 O.S.2001, § 7306-2.6(A)(9)
2. 10 O.S.Supp.2008, § 7306-2.10(D)
3. 10A O.S.Supp.2010, § 2-5-210(D)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10 § 7306-2.6 (2001) - Youthful Offender
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10 § 7306-2.10 (Supp. 2008) - Credits for Time Served
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-210 (Supp. 2010) - Credits for Time Served

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.