Carrie Denise Stumpff v The State Of Oklahoma

RE 2013-0511

Filed: Apr. 18, 2014

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Carrie Denise Stumpff

Summary

Carrie Denise Stumpff appealed her conviction for violating the terms of her suspended sentence. Her conviction and sentence were for five years in prison. Judge A. Johnson wrote the opinion, and no one dissented. Stumpff had initially pled guilty to Driving Under the Influence in 2005 and was given a suspended sentence with conditions. Later, the state accused her of not following those conditions. Stumpff agreed to the accusations without a lawyer and her sentence was revoked. However, the court did not properly ensure she understood her right to have a lawyer, which led to the decision being reversed. The case was sent back to the lower court to fix the mistake.

Decision

The revocation of Stumpff's suspended sentence in Washington County District Court Case No. CF-2005-118 is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Appellant's Request to Supplement Existing Appeal Record and Alternative Application for Faretta U. California Hearing, tendered for filing on December 2, 2013, is rendered moot. 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 the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there a failure by the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether Stumpff invoked her right to represent herself at her revocation proceeding?
• Did the revocation of five years of Stumpff's suspended sentence constitute excessive punishment?

Findings

• the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to determine if Stumpff knowingly waived her right to counsel
• the revocation of Stumpff's suspended sentence is reversed and remanded for further proceedings

RE 2013-0511

Apr. 18, 2014

Carrie Denise Stumpff

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

A. JOHNSON, JUDGE:

Carrie Denise Stumpff, Appellant, pled guilty on November 22, 2005, to Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, AFC, in Washington County District Court Case No. CF-2005-118. Sentencing was delayed pending Stumpff’s completion of Drug Court. Stumpff successfully completed Drug Court and was sentenced on April 21, 2009, to five years suspended with rules and conditions of probation.

The State filed a motion to revoke Stumpff’s suspended sentence on February 8, 2012, alleging she (1) failed to complete substance abuse treatment as ordered, (2) failed to maintain full-time employment as ordered, and (3) failed to pay probation fees as ordered. On April 17, 2012, Stumpff, pro se, waived her right to an attorney, waived her right to a revocation hearing, and stipulated to the State’s allegations in the motion to revoke. The Honorable Curtis L. DeLapp, District Judge, accepted Stumpff’s stipulation, revoked her suspended sentence, and took sentencing under advisement, giving Stumpff another opportunity to get into compliance. Stumpff, represented by appointed counsel, was sentenced on May 14, 2013, to five years imprisonment.

Stumpff appeals, raising the following issues: (1) that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing to determine whether Stumpff invoked her right to represent herself at her revocation proceeding, and (2) that the revocation of five years of Stumpff’s suspended sentence was excessive. In the State’s Answer Brief filed in this Court on January 30, 2014, the State agrees that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing to determine whether Stumpff knowingly waived her right to counsel and concedes that this error requires reversal and remand to the District Court. After reviewing the record on appeal we agree.^1

The State concedes and we agree that the record in this case contains no appropriate colloquy between Stumpff and the trial court sufficient to demonstrate a knowing waiver of counsel.

DECISION

The revocation of Stumpff’s suspended sentence in Washington County District Court Case No. CF-2005-118 is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Appellant’s Request to Supplement Existing Appeal Record and Alternative Application for Faretta U. California Hearing, tendered for filing on December 2, 2013, is rendered moot. 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 the filing of this decision.

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

KRISTI SANDERS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
415 S. DEWEY
BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA 74003
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

KATRINA CONRAD-LEGLER
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
P. O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

WILL DRAKE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
WASHINGTON COUNTY

E. SCOTT PRUITT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA

JAY SCHNIEDERJAN
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.W. 21st STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, J.

LEWIS, P.J.: Concur

SMITH, V.P.J.: Concur

LUMPKIN, J.: Concur

C.JOHNSON, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Section 991b(D) of Title 22 sets forth that the person whose suspended sentence is being considered for revocation at the hearing shall have the right to be represented by counsel.
2. The right to counsel may be waived, but if the right to counsel is waived, "the record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. This record is mandatory and anything less is not waiver." Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, ¶ 6, 668 P.2d 1144.
3. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1, ¶ 7, 271 P.3d 67, 71-72.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b(D) - Revocation of Suspended Sentence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Sentencing for Certain Crimes

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:

• Lineberry v. State, 1983 OK CR 115, I 6, 668 P.2d 1144
• Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562
• Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1, II 7, 271 P.3d 67, 71-72