Sean Eddie Howland v The State Of Oklahoma

RE 2014-0706

Filed: May 12, 2015

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Sean Eddie Howland appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle and obstructing an officer. Conviction and sentence were reversed and remanded for dismissal. Judge N/A dissented.

Decision

The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Rogers County District Court Case No. CF-2008-558 is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2015), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there a denial of effective assistance of counsel in the revocation proceedings in violation of constitutional rights?
• Did unwarranted delay in the revocation proceedings, coupled with the failure to honor a previously imposed lawful sentencing order, deny Appellant due process?

Findings

• The court erred in denying effective assistance of counsel in the revocation proceedings.
• The court erred in finding unwarranted delay in the revocation proceedings denied Appellant due process.
• The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.

RE 2014-0706

May 12, 2015

Sean Eddie Howland

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

MICHAEL S. RICHIE HUDSON, JUDGE:

Appellant, Sean Eddie Howland, pled guilty on July 17, 2009, to Count 1 – Possession of Stolen Vehicle and Count 2 – Obstructing Officer in Rogers County District Court Case No. CF-2008-558. He was given three years suspended except for six months and a $300 fine on Count 1, and sixty days in the Rogers County Jail and a $100.00 fine on Count 2. Counts 1 and 2 were ordered to run concurrent with credit for time served and with rules and conditions of probation.

The State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence on March 10, 2010, alleging Appellant failed to contact his DOC probation officer after being released from prison in New Mexico on February 10, 2010. On March 7, 2011, Appellant confessed the State’s application to revoke. The Honorable Terrell S. Crosson, Special Judge, gave Appellant ninety days to be in compliance with the rules and conditions of probation. Appellant failed to appear at the ninety-day review hearing. Following a revocation hearing on August 4, 2014, Judge Crosson revoked the balance of 2-1/2 years on Count 1.

Appellant appeals, raising the following issues:
1. Appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel to which he was entitled in the revocation proceedings in violation of the 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, art. II, §§ 7 and 20, of the Oklahoma Constitution, and 22 O.S. § 991b.
2. Unwarranted delay in the revocation proceedings combined with the failure to honor the terms of a previously imposed lawful sentencing order denied Appellant due process to his prejudice in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. II, § 7, of the Oklahoma Constitution.

In the State’s Brief filed in this Court on April 7, 2015, the State answers that the unwarranted delay in prosecuting the application to revoke denied Appellant due process of law, that the prosecution in this case failed to exercise due diligence in prosecuting the application to revoke in a timely manner thereby precluding Appellant’s sentences from being served concurrently as was ordered by the Tulsa County Court in Case No. CF-2012-3349. See Cheadle v. State, 1988 OK CR 226, IT 4, 762 P.2d 995.

After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree.

DECISION

The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence in Rogers County District Court Case No. CF-2008-558 is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2015), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

1 Because Appellant’s second proposition of error requires relief, the first proposition of error will not be addressed.

2 REVOCATION APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROGERS COUNTY, THE HONORABLE TERRELL S. CROSSON, SPECIAL JUDGE APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

ANDREW MELOY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
177 W. DELAWARE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 926
VINITA, OKLAHOMA 74301
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

TERRY J. HULL
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

REAGAN REININGER
E. SCOTT PRUITT
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
200 S. LYNN RIGGS BLVD.
CLAREMORE, OKLAHOMA 74017
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

THOMAS LEE TUCKER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.W. 21st STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.

SMITH, P.J.: CONCUR

LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS

JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR

LEWIS, J.: CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. See Cheadle v. State, 1988 OK CR 226, IT 4, 762 P.2d 995.
2. 22 O.S. § 991b.
3. art. II, § 7, of the Oklahoma Constitution.
4. art. II, § 20, of the Oklahoma Constitution.
5. 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
6. 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b - Application to revoke sentence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Possession of Stolen Vehicle
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 583 - Obstructing Officer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - Criminal Procedure
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 19 - Sentencing

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:

• Cheadle v. State, 1988 OK CR 226, I 4, 762 P.2d 995