Justin Michael Jay v The State Of Oklahoma
RE-2013-1027
Filed: Jan. 8, 2015
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Justin Michael Jay appealed his conviction for Forgery in the Second Degree. His conviction and sentence were for five years, but 4 years and 335 days of that sentence were suspended. Jay had violated the terms of his probation, leading to the revocation of his suspended sentence. The court found that he had not paid his fees, was charged with new offenses, and thus, decided to revoke the remaining suspended time. The Court of Criminal Appeals found errors in how the time was calculated and reversed the district court's decision. They determined that Jay should have received credit for more time served before his conviction, reducing the revoked time to 4 years and 182 days. Additionally, the appeals court agreed that the court did not have the authority to impose post-imprisonment supervision because Jay's original conviction happened before a new law took effect. Therefore, the additional supervision requirement was also removed. Judge Smith and Judge Lumpkin agreed with the decision, while Judge Johnson also concurred.
Decision
The 1st Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation, entered by the District Court of Payne County in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2010-517 is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court (1) to correct the amount of time revoked from "4 years & 335 days" to '4 years and 182 days'; and (2) to delete the provision stating that "upon release from DOC, Defendant is to be supervised for 1 year." Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules 3 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 written first amended judgment and sentence after revocation valid given that it revoked more time than the remaining balance of the suspended sentence?
- Did the trial court have the authority to impose post-imprisonment supervision upon the revocation of Mr. Jay's conviction and sentence?
Findings
- the court erred in revoking more time than the remaining balance of Mr. Jay's suspended sentence
- the court erred in imposing post-imprisonment supervision, as Appellant was convicted prior to the applicable statute
RE-2013-1027
Jan. 8, 2015
Justin Michael Jay
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
LEWIS, JUDGE: The Appellant, Justin Michael Jay, appeals from an order of the District Court of Payne County, entered by the Honorable Phillip Corley, District Judge, revoking 4 years and 335 days of his suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2010-517. On August 26, 2011, Appellant entered a plea of guilty and was convicted of Forgery in the Second Degree. He was sentenced to a term of five years, suspended except for the first 30 days in the Payne County Jail, with credit for time served.
On October 1, 2013, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence alleging he violated probation (1) by being in arrears on payment of supervision fees, restitution, and court costs; (2) by being charged with the offense of Domestic Abuse – Assault and Battery, in Payne County District Court Case No. CM-2013-362; and (3) by being charged with the offense of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, in Payne County District Court Case No. CM-2013-1080.
The revocation hearing was conducted before Judge Corley on October 24, 2013. After hearing the evidence and arguments, Judge Corley stated that he was revoking the balance of Appellant’s suspended sentence. On October 31, 2013, the District Court filed a Judgment and Sentence After Revocation, which stated that the Court now revokes the remaining balance of Appellant’s suspended sentence. On November 7, 2013, the District Court filed a 1st Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation, which stated that the Court now revokes 4 years and 335 days of Appellant’s suspended sentence; and also stated that upon release from DOC, Defendant is to be supervised for 1 year.
Appellant filed this appeal from Judge Corley’s revocation order asserting the following propositions of error:
I. THE WRITTEN FIRST AMENDED JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AFTER REVOCATION REVOKED MORE TIME THAN THE REMAINING BALANCE OF MR. JAY’S SUSPENDED SENTENCE AND MUST BE REMANDED TO MODIFY THE LENGTH OF TIME REVOKED TO COMPORT TO THE COURT’S ORAL ORDERS.
II. THE TRIAL COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE POST-IMPRISONMENT SUPERVISION UPON REVOCATION OF MR. JAY’S AUGUST 26, 2011, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
ANALYSIS
In his first proposition, Appellant argues, and the State agrees, that when Judge Corley issued the 1st Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation, he only gave Appellant credit for 30 days of time served on the suspended sentence. Both parties agree that Appellant should have been credited for serving 183 days, from February 25, 2011, to August 26, 2011, as part of the Delayed Sentencing Program for Youthful Offenders. Therefore, the 1st Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation must be reversed and remanded to the District Court to correct the amount of time revoked from 4 years & 335 days to ‘4 years and 182 days.’
In proposition two, Appellant argues, and the State also agrees, that the 1st Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation must also be corrected by deleting the provision stating that upon release from DOC, Defendant is to be supervised for 1 year. The District Court was trying to impose post-imprisonment supervision on Appellant, pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991a-21(A). However, Section 991a-21(A) specifically states that it shall apply to persons convicted and sentenced on or after November 1, 2012. Id. Appellant was convicted and sentenced on August 26, 2011, prior to enactment of Section 991a-21. Therefore, the 1st Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation must be reversed and remanded to the District Court to delete the provision stating that upon release from DOC, Defendant is to be supervised for 1 year.
DECISION
The 1st Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation, entered by the District Court of Payne County in revoking Appellant’s suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2010-517 is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court (1) to correct the amount of time revoked from 4 years & 335 days to ‘4 years and 182 days’; and (2) to delete the provision stating that upon release from DOC, Defendant is to be supervised for 1 year.
Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules 3 of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2014), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
Footnotes:
- 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991a-21(A)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991a-21 (2012) - Post-Imprisonment Supervision
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:
No case citations found.