Stacy Gene Bellis v The State Of Oklahoma
RE-2012-1076
Filed: Apr. 18, 2014
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Stacy Gene Bellis
Summary
Stacy Gene Bellis appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. His conviction and sentence were for twelve years, with some of the time suspended if he completed a drug treatment program. The State of Oklahoma wanted to revoke this suspended sentence because Bellis was accused of committing a new crime. After a hearing, the judge revoked Bellis' suspended sentence. Bellis argued that the court made a mistake by using evidence from his earlier trial to justify the revocation without his agreement. The court agreed and decided that it was wrong to take evidence from another trial without Bellis agreeing to it. Therefore, the court reversed the decision to revoke his sentence and said there should be a new hearing on the matter. No other changes were needed. Justice Lumpkin dissented.
Decision
The district court's revocation order is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2014), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- whether the district court erred by taking judicial notice of and incorporating the evidence from his trial in Case No. CF-2011-3858 as support for the application to revoke
- whether his case requires dismissal because of insufficient evidence
Findings
- the court erred
- the evidence was not sufficient
RE-2012-1076
Apr. 18, 2014
Stacy Gene Bellis
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
A. JOHNSON, JUDGE: Appellant Stacy Gene Bellis pled guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2009-624, to one count of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2006, 645. The district court sentenced Bellis to twelve years, with the balance suspended upon completion of a Department of Corrections’ drug treatment program. The State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence because of new crimes Bellis allegedly committed that were charged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2011-3858. The Honorable Donald L. Deason held a hearing on the application and found by a preponderance of the evidence that Bellis had committed the new crime of assault and battery with a deadly weapon as alleged in Count 3 of CF-2011-3858. Judge Deason revoked Bellis’ suspended sentence in full and ordered the revoked sentence to run concurrently with Bellis’ sentence in CF-2011-3858.
From the order revoking his suspended sentence, Bellis appeals raising the following issues: (1) whether the district court erred by taking judicial notice of and incorporating the evidence from his trial in Case No. CF-2011-3858 as support for the application to revoke; and (2) whether his case requires dismissal because of insufficient evidence. We find the district court’s revocation order must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new hearing on the State’s application to revoke Bellis’ suspended sentence for the reasons discussed below. No other relief is required.
The district court presided over Bellis’ trial in CF-2011-3858 that resulted in his conviction on Count 3. Several weeks later, the district court heard the State’s application to revoke suspended sentence. It took judicial notice of evidence from Bellis’ separate jury trial in CF-2011-3858 as the sole proof to support the State’s application to revoke suspended sentence. In Linscome v. State, 1978 OK CR 95, 11 3-6, 584 P.2d 1349, 1350, the Court held it was error to issue a revocation order based on taking judicial notice of evidence presented in another hearing/trial (even one held the same day) when the defendant had not stipulated to that evidence. The Linscome Court stated: Concerning the second factor, no matter that has been put in issue by the pleadings can be considered undisputed for purposes of judicial notice. In the instant case, the application to revoke the suspended sentence put into issue the question of whether the appellant had violated the terms of his suspended sentence by committing the offense of Larceny of Merchandise From a Retailer. The State was obligated to prove the facts it had pled, and the appellant did not stipulate to the evidence presented in the trial held earlier the same day. Therefore, it was error for the trial court to take judicial notice of that evidence. Id. at I 6, 584 P.2d at 1350.
Bellis did not stipulate to the incorporation of evidence from his trial in CF-2011-3858. Under Linscome, it was error for the district court to take judicial notice of and rely on evidence from a separate trial for the revocation order.
DECISION
The district court’s revocation order is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2014), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE DONALD L. DEASON, DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
ROBIN BRUNO
ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER
611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
PAUL M. CLARK
ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDERS
611 COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
JAMES RADFORD
ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDER
320 ROBERT S. KERR
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
MARCY FASSIO
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
320 ROBERT S. KERR, # 505
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEY FOR STATE
E. SCOTT PRUITT
OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL
JUDY KING
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.E. 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, J.
LEWIS, P.J.: Concur
SMITH, V.P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur
C. JOHNSON, J.: Concur
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2006, 645
- Linscome v. State, 1978 OK CR 95, 11 3-6, 584 P.2d 1349, 1350
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 (2011) - Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Larceny of Merchandise From a Retailer
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:
- Linscome v. State, 1978 OK CR 95, I 3-6, 584 P.2d 1349, 1350