Joseph Leonard Cox, Jr. v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2013-848

Filed: Dec. 19, 2014

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Joseph Leonard Cox, Jr. appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine. His conviction and twenty-year suspended sentence were reversed. The court agreed that the trial court did not have the power to revoke the suspended sentence because it did not hold the hearing in time. Smith concurred in the decision.

Decision

The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Osage County District Court Case No. CF-2010-51 is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court 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 the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there a lack of jurisdiction to revoke Mr. Cox's suspended sentence due to the hearing not being held within 20 days of the plea?
• Should the trial court have allowed Mr. Cox to withdraw his stipulation to the motion to revoke based on uncontradicted evidence of duress?

Findings

• the trial court lost jurisdiction to revoke the suspended sentence
• the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence is reversed and remanded for further proceedings

RE-2013-848

Dec. 19, 2014

Joseph Leonard Cox, Jr.

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Joseph Leonard Cox, Jr., Appellant, was charged on February 24, 2010, with Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine, in Osage County District Court Case No. CF-2010-51. On May 4, 2010, Appellant entered a plea of guilty and the Honorable John Kane, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to twenty years imprisonment, with all twenty years suspended. The State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence on April 6, 2011, alleging Appellant committed the new crimes of Count 1, Possession of Controlled Substance; Count 2, Possession of Controlled Substance; Count 3, Possession of Controlled Substance; and Count 4, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia as alleged in Osage County District Court Case No. CF-2011-82. On April 8, 2011, Appellant appeared in the District Court and was arraigned on the motion to revoke. The District Court entered a General Denial on Appellant’s behalf and ordered Appellant to appear on April 15, 2011.

Appellant appeared on April 15, 2011, and the District Court set the motion to revoke for hearing on May 19, 2011. After several continuances, a hearing on the motion to revoke was held on January 7, 2013. Appellant stipulated to the allegations contained in the motion to revoke and pursuant to a plea agreement Judge Kane revoked Appellant’s twenty-year suspended sentence in full. Appellant appeals, raising the following issues:

Proposition I: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke Mr. Cox’s suspended sentence because the hearing on the application to revoke was not held within 20 days of the entering of Mr. Cox’s Plea.

Proposition II: Because the evidence was uncontradicted that Mr. Cox was under duress when he stipulated to the allegations in the motion to revoke, the trial court should have allowed Mr. Cox to withdraw his stipulation to the motion to revoke.

In Appellant’s first proposition of error, Appellant argues the District Court lost jurisdiction to hear the State’s application to revoke by failing to hold the hearing within twenty days and by failing to timely secure a waiver of the twenty- day rule. Section 991b(A) of Title 22 requires that a hearing on the State’s application to revoke must be held within twenty (20) days after the entry of the plea of not guilty to the petition, unless waived by both the state and the defendant. See, Byrd v. Caswell, 2001 OK CR 29, I 6, 34 P.3d 647, 648-649. The State’s Answer Brief filed in this Court on April 28, 2014, concedes Proposition I. The State agrees that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the State’s motion to revoke and agrees that this error requires reversal and remand to the District Court. After reviewing the record on appeal we agree. Because Appellant’s first proposition of error requires relief, the second proposition of error will not be addressed.

DECISION

The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence in Osage County District Court Case No. CF-2010-51 is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court 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 the filing of this decision.

REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OSAGE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE JOHN KANE, DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
ROD RAMSEY
OKLAHOMA INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM
P. O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
THOMAS PURCELL
117 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 402
BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA 74003
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

DIANE HANMER
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
628 1/2 KIHEKAY, THIRD FLOOR
PAWHUSKA, OKLAHOMA 74056
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

E. SCOTT PRUITT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
KEELEY L. MILLER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.W. 21 st STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: JOHNSON, J.
LEWIS, P.J.: Concur
SMITH, V.P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur

3

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. See, Byrd v. Caswell, 2001 OK CR 29, I 6, 34 P.3d 647, 648-649.
2. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18 App. (2014).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b(A) - Revocation of Suspended Sentences
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Manufacturing Methamphetamine

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:

• Byrd v. Caswell, 2001 OK CR 29, I 6, 34 P.3d 647, 648-649