Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2010-403

Filed: Aug. 17, 2011

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Eddie Ray Casey, Jr. appealed his conviction for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property and Larceny of an Automobile. Conviction and sentence are ten years, with the first year in jail, and the rest suspended. The court agreed to correct one part of the ruling to show nine total years were revoked since the sentences were to run at the same time. Casey’s appeal was mostly denied, and the judge found no mistake in revoking his suspended sentence entirely. Judge Lewis dissented.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Rogers County revoking Eddie Ray Casey, Jr.'s suspended sentence in Case Nos. CF-2008-351 and CF-2008-529 is AFFIRMED. However, the matter is REMANDED to the District Court with INSTRUCTIONS to correct by order nunc pro tunc the revocation order to reflect that nine total years was revoked. 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 the written order revoking Casey's sentence in error because it did not comply with the trial court's previous order for concurrent sentences?
• Did the District Court abuse its discretion in revoking Casey's suspended sentence in full?

Findings

• the court erred in the revocation order regarding the length of the sentence
• the District Court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the suspended sentence in full

RE-2010-403

Aug. 17, 2011

Eddie Ray Casey, Jr.

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

C. JOHNSON, JUDGE:

On August 24, 2009, Appellant, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr., represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea in Rogers County District Court Case No. CF-2008-351, to Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of a Felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Casey was sentenced to ten years incarceration, all but the first year suspended. On the same day, Casey also entered a guilty plea in Rogers County District Court Case No. CF-2008-529, to Larceny of an Automobile, After Former Conviction of a Felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Casey was sentenced to ten years incarceration, all but the first year suspended. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

On February 2, 2010, the State filed an application to revoke Casey’s suspended sentence. 1 On April 21, 2010, a hearing was held before the Honorable Erin L. Oquin, Special Judge. At the conclusion of the hearing, Casey’s suspended sentence was revoked in full. From that order of revocation, Casey has perfected this appeal.

In his first assignment of error, Casey asserts the written order revoking his sentence was in error because it did not comport with the trial court’s previous order that the sentences were to be served concurrently. Casey asserts a trial court has no authority by an intervening revocation order to order any term beyond the term of the original sentence. See Hemphill U. State, 1998 OK CR 7, I 9, 954 P.2d 148, 151. The State agrees with Casey and does not object to the correction of the record by order nunc pro tunc to reflect Casey’s sentence was revoked for nine years. We find Casey’s claim has merit. This matter SHALL be REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to correct the revocation order to reflect that nine total years was revoked because the sentences in CF-2008-351 and CF-2008-529 were ordered to run concurrently.

In his final assignment of error, Casey claims the District Court abused its discretion in revoking his suspended sentence in full. A District Court’s decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or in part is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard. Hampton v. State, 2009 OK CR 4, T 10, 203 P.3d 179, 182. Further, revocation of a suspended sentence is justified even if a violation of only one condition is shown by a preponderance of the evidence. McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, I 2, 740 P.2d 744, 745. 2 Case Nos. RE-2010-403 and RE-2010-404 were consolidated for purposes of appeal.

Based on the record before this Court, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s revocation of Casey’s suspended sentence in full.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Rogers County revoking Eddie Ray Casey, Jr.’s suspended sentence in Case Nos. CF-2008-351 and CF-2008-529 is AFFIRMED. However, the matter is REMANDED to the District Court with INSTRUCTIONS to correct by order nunc pro tunc the revocation order to reflect that nine total years was revoked. 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. On August 24, 2009, Appellant, Eddie Ray Casey, Jr., represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea in Rogers County District Court Case No. CF-2008-351, to Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, After Former Conviction of a Felony.
2. In Case No. CF-2010-54, Casey was charged with Aggravated Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of a Felony.
3. In Case No. CM-2010-131, Casey was charged with Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol.
4. See Hemphill v. State, 1998 OK CR 7, ¶ 9, 954 P.2d 148, 151.
5. Hampton v. State, 2009 OK CR 4, ¶ 10, 203 P.3d 179, 182.
6. McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, ¶ 2, 740 P.2d 744, 745.
7. Case Nos. RE-2010-403 and RE-2010-404 were consolidated for purposes of appeal.
8. 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.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Revocation of Suspended Sentence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

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:

• Hemphill v. State, 1998 OK CR 7, 9, 954 P.2d 148, 151
• Hampton v. State, 2009 OK CR 4, 10, 203 P.3d 179, 182
• McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, 2, 740 P.2d 744, 745