Lela Mae Goodwin v State Of Oklahoma
RE 2013-0885
Filed: Sep. 30, 2014
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Lela Mae Goodwin appealed her conviction for violating her probation terms. Her original conviction included two felony counts: Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, which had resulted in two suspended sentences of six years each, along with fines for other minor charges. The State claimed she had broken the rules of her probation by using drugs, not attending required treatment programs, and failing to pay her probation fees. After a hearing, the judge decided to revoke her suspended sentences. Goodwin argued that her sentence was too harsh and that the court should not have imposed a period of supervision after her prison time. However, the court ruled that there was no abuse of discretion in revoking her sentence. They agreed that because her sentencing happened before a new law requiring supervision was enacted, she wouldn't need it. The court upheld the revocation of her sentences but returned the case to fix a part about post-imprisonment supervision that shouldn't have been included. #Goodwin appealed her conviction for violating probation. Conviction and sentence upheld. #n dissented.
Decision
The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Tulsa County District Court Case Nos. CF-2011-1942 and CF-2011-2208 is AFFIRMED but REMANDED to the District Court to amend the orders revoking Appellant's suspended sentences striking the following language: "Upon release from such confinement, the Defendant shall serve a term of post-imprisonment supervision, under conditions prescribed by the Department of Corrections, for a period of *" 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 the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences excessive in light of the alleged probation violation?
- Was the District Court without authority to impose a period of post-imprisonment supervision in this case?
Findings
- the court did not err in revoking the suspended sentences
- the sentence is not excessive in light of the alleged probation violation
- the District Court had authority to revoke the suspended sentences
- the District Court was without authority to impose a period of post-imprisonment supervision
- the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences is affirmed but remanded for amendment
RE 2013-0885
Sep. 30, 2014
Lela Mae Goodwin
Appellantv
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
MICHAEL S. RICHIE SMITH, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:
Appellant, Lela Mae Goodwin, pled guilty on April 16, 2012, in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2011-1942 to Count 1 – Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug, after four prior felony convictions, Count 2 – Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Count 3 – Failure to Carry Insurance/Security Verification Form, and Count 4 – Defective Vehicle. On Count 1 she was sentenced to six years, suspended, with rules and conditions of probation and fined $600.00. The sentence was ordered to run concurrent with Case No. CF-2011-2208. On Count 2, a misdemeanor, Appellant was sentenced to one year in the Tulsa County Jail, all suspended, and fined $325.00. The sentence was ordered to run concurrent with Count 1. On Counts 3 and 4, misdemeanors, Appellant was fined $10.00 on each count.
Appellant pled guilty April 16, 2012, in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2011-2208 to Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, after four prior felony convictions. She was sentenced to six years, suspended, with rules and conditions of probation. The sentence was ordered to run concurrent with Case No. CF-2011-1942. She was also fined $600.00.
The State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence in CF-2011-1942 on September 13, 2012, and in CF-2011-2208 on September 26, 2012. Amended applications were filed in both cases. In both cases the State alleged Appellant committed the new crime of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, a felony, as alleged in Case No. CF-2012-3829; Appellant admitted on February 20, 2013, to using crack cocaine and alcohol; Appellant failed to attend treatment, the Female Offender Diversion Program, as instructed; Appellant failed to pay probation fees and was in arrears; Appellant admitted using crack cocaine on April 17, 2013, and April 24, 2013. Contrary to Appellant’s assertions to her probation officer and to the court, Appellant was not in regular contact with the Tulsa Center, and the Center was unable to reach Appellant when a bed became available. Appellant was then instructed to attend outpatient treatment at Family and Children Services. She failed to attend.
Following a revocation hearing for both cases on August 29, 2013, before the Honorable Tom C. Gillert, District Judge, Appellant was found to be in violation of the terms of her suspended sentences and the suspended sentences were revoked in full. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences. On appeal, Appellant raises two propositions of error:
1. Appellant’s sentence is excessive in light of the alleged probation violation.
2. The District Court was without authority to impose a period of post-imprisonment supervision in this case.
Appellant’s first proposition of error argues that the revocation of six years was an abuse of discretion. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or in part is within the sound discretion of the trial court and such decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, 10, 306 P.3rd 554, 557. An ‘abuse of discretion’ has been defined by this Court as a ‘clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application’. Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, ¶ 5, 780 P.2d 1181. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion.
In Appellant’s second proposition of error, she argues that the District Court was without authority to impose a period of post-imprisonment supervision. The State answers that because Appellant was convicted and sentenced in April of 2012, Sec. 991a-21 of Title 22, requiring post-imprisonment supervision for those sentenced after November 1, 2012, does not provide mandatory supervision in Appellant’s case. We agree.
DECISION
The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentences in Tulsa County District Court Case Nos. CF-2011-1942 and CF-2011-2208 is AFFIRMED but REMANDED to the District Court to amend the orders revoking Appellant’s suspended sentences striking the following language: Upon release from such confinement, the Defendant shall serve a term of post-imprisonment supervision, under conditions prescribed by the Department of Corrections, for a period of *
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.
REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE TOM C. GILLERT, DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION HEARING
TASHA STEWARD
TULSA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
423 SOUTH BOULDER AVE., SUITE #300
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
STUART W. SOUTHERLAND
TULSA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
423 SOUTH BOULDER AVE., SUITE #300
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
NALANI CHING
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TULSA COUNTY COURTHOUSE
500 SOUTH DENVER
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
E. SCOTT PRUITT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
JUDY KING
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.W. 21st STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
OPINION BY: SMITH, V.P.J.
LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
Footnotes:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991a-21
- Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, 10, 306 P.3rd 554, 557
- Walker U. State, 1989 OK CR 65, IT 5, 780 P.2d 1181
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2014)
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:
- Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, 10, 306 P.3rd 554, 557
- Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, IT 5, 780 P.2d 1181