Debbie Edwards v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2010-431

Filed: Apr. 19, 2011

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Debbie Edwards appealed her conviction for forging documents. Her conviction and sentence were originally set to be deferred for five years, but after violating probation rules, the court revoked her suspended sentences. Edwards argued that the judge should not have made her sentences run one after the other (consecutively) rather than at the same time (concurrently). The State agreed with her and asked for a new sentence to be set. The court decided to keep the revocation of her sentences, but ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing to fix the consecutive sentences issue. Judge A. Johnson and others agreed with the decision, while Judge C. Johnson also agreed.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Osage County revoking Debbie Edwards' five year suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2004-56, CF-2004-57, CF-2004-58, CF-2004-59 and CF-2004-60 is AFFIRMED. However, the matter is REMANDED for RESENTENCING consistent with the original Judgment and Sentence. 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 authority for the District Court to order Debbie Edwards' sentences to run consecutively?
• did the District Court commit error by running Edwards' sentences consecutively?
• was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the District Court's order running the sentences consecutively?

Findings

• the court erred by running Edwards' sentences consecutively
• the matter is remanded for resentencing consistent with the original Judgment and Sentence
• the Proposition regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is rendered moot

RE-2010-431

Apr. 19, 2011

Debbie Edwards

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: MICHAEL S. RICHIE

On April 30, 2004, Debbie Edwards entered pleas of guilty to QUERKing a Forged Instrument in Osage County District Court Case Nos. CF-2004-56, CF-2004-57, CF-2004-58, CF-2004-59 and CF-2004-60. The pleas were accepted and sentencing was deferred for five years, or until April 30, 2009. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

On October 27, 2004, an application to accelerate deferred sentence was filed in Case No. CF-2004-56. On November 19, 2004, an application to accelerate deferred sentence was filed in Case Nos. CF-2004-57, CF-2004-58, CF-2004-59 and CF-2004-60. On May 12, 2006, the court found Edwards had violated the rules and conditions of her probation and sentenced her to five years incarceration, all suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

On January 9, 2007, the State filed applications to revoke suspended sentences in each case. On April 30, 2010, a hearing was held before the Honorable John S. Boggs, Special Judge. At the conclusion of that hearing, Edwards’ sentences were revoked in full and ordered to run consecutively.

In her first assignment of error, Edwards claims the District Court lacked authority to order her sentences to run consecutively. The State agrees the District Court committed error by running Edwards’ sentences consecutively and requests this Court remand the matter for re-sentencing consistent with the original Judgment and Sentence. We agree. The consequence of a judicial revocation is to execute a penalty previously imposed in the Judgment and Sentence. Degraffenreid v. State, 1979 OK CR 88, ¶13, 599 P.2d 1107, 1109.

In her final assignment of error, Edwards asserts her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the District Court’s order running her sentences consecutively. Our resolution of Proposition I renders this proposition of error moot.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Osage County revoking Debbie Edwards’ five year suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2004-56, CF-2004-57, CF-2004-58, CF-2004-59 and CF-2004-60 is AFFIRMED. However, the matter is REMANDED for RESENTENCING consistent with the original Judgment and Sentence. 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.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OSAGE COUNTY

THE HONORABLE JOHN S. BOGGS, SPECIAL JUDGE

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
ROD RAMSEY
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL
RAYMOND E. DENECKE
STUART TATE
THEODORE M. PEEPER
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
DEFENSE COUNSEL
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OSAGE COUNTY

OPINION BY: LEWIS, V.P.J.: A. JOHNSON, P.J.: Concurs
LUMPKIN, J.: Concurs
C. JOHNSON, J.: Concurs
SMITH, J.: Concurs

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Degraffenreid v. State, 1979 OK CR 88, ¶ 13, 599 P.2d 1107, 1109.
2. Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2011).

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:

• Degraffenreid v. State, 1979 OK CR 88, I 13, 599 P.2d 1107, 1109