Samuel David Mirich v The State Of Oklahoma

RE 2012-0259

Filed: Jun. 4, 2013

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Samuel David Mirich

Summary

Samuel David Murich appealed his conviction for possessing a controlled dangerous substance. His conviction and sentence were for five years of suspended time, which means he wouldn’t serve time in prison if he followed certain rules. A few years later, the State said he broke the rules because he was accused of a new crime, Accessory to Murder. After a hearing, a judge decided to take away Murich's suspended sentences entirely. On appeal, Murich argued that the State did not prove its case properly and also mentioned there was a delay that hurt his rights. The State agreed that they did not provide enough proof about the conviction they used against him. The court decided to reverse the judge's decision and sent the case back for more action because of the lack of proof. In conclusion, Samuel David Murich appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance. His conviction and sentence were reversed, and the case was sent back for further actions. Judge Smith dissented.

Decision

The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Garfield County District Court Case Nos. CF-2003-681 and CF-2003-805 is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there sufficient proof of the finality of the conviction used for revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences?
• Did the State's unexplained and unreasonable delay deprive Appellant of his due process rights?

Findings

• the court erred
• the second proposition of error is moot

RE 2012-0259

Jun. 4, 2013

Samuel David Mirich

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant, Samuel David Murich, pled guilty December 17, 2004, in Garfield County District Court Case Nos. CF-2003-681 and CF-2003-805 to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. Appellant was sentenced on July 8, 2005, to five years suspended in each case with rules and conditions of probation. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Both of these sentences were also ordered to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in Cleveland County Case No. CF-2006-1185.

The State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences on June 7, 2006, alleging Appellant committed the offense of Domestic Abuse as alleged in CM-2006-62 and that Appellant had tested positive for amphetamines. The application was amended July 18, 2007, to include the allegation that Appellant was convicted of the offense of Accessory to Murder in the First Degree in Cleveland County Case No. CF-2006-1185. The second amended application was filed March 27, 2008, alleging Appellant committed three additional criminal offenses. Following a revocation hearing on March 15, 2012, Appellant’s suspended sentences were revoked in full. The Honorable Paul K. Woodward, District Judge, revoked Appellant’s suspended sentences finding Appellant committed the new offense of Accessory to Murder in the First Degree.

Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences. On appeal, Appellant raises two propositions of error: (1) The State failed to prove the allegation that Appellant violated the probation rule against committing other offenses because it failed to prove the finality of the conviction it offered as proof; and, (2) The orders revoking Appellant’s suspended sentences should be vacated because the State’s unexplained and unreasonable delay deprived Appellant of his due process rights to his prejudice under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. II, § 7, of the Oklahoma Constitution.

In the State’s Answer Brief filed in this Court January 7, 2013, the State concedes the use of the Judgment and Sentence of a new offense as the sole basis for Appellant’s revocation, without presenting proof of the finality of the new conviction, entitles Appellant to relief. We agree. When the State introduces a certified or authenticated copy of the judgment and sentence of the referenced conviction as a basis for revocation of a suspended sentence, it must also offer strict proof of the finality of that referenced judgment and sentence. Pickens v. State, 1989 OK CR 58, IT 12, 779 P.2d 596. In this case, the State failed to offer any proof of finality of the Judgment and Sentence in Cleveland County Case No. CF-2006-1185. As we find Appellant is entitled to relief on his first proposition of error, the second proposition of error is moot.

DECISION

The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentences in Garfield County District Court Case Nos. CF-2003-681 and CF-2003-805 is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2013), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1089
2. Pickens v. State, 1989 OK CR 58, ¶ 12, 779 P.2d 596

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Accessory to Murder in the First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 982a (2011) - Revocation of Suspended Sentences
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1080 (2011) - Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 14 § 112 (2011) - Due Process Rights

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:

• Pickens v. State, 1989 OK CR 58, I 12, 779 P.2d 596
• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800