Blog

ORIGINAL * 1043786875 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA DARMAECIA BRENDETTE ) HILL, ) NOT FOR PUBLICATION Appellant, -vs- No. RE-2017-1287 ) FILED THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) Appellee. ) JUN – 6 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN SUMMARY OPINION CLERK LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant, Darmaecia Brendette Hill, appeals from the revocation of three and one-half years of her suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 in the District Court of Payne County, by the Honorable Stephen R. Kistler, Associate District Judge. In Case No. CF-2014-506, Appellant entered a plea of guilty and was convicted of Count 1: Child Neglect, felony; and Count 2: Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, misdemeanor. She was sen- tenced to a term of seven years, with all but the first 120 days suspended on Count 1, and a term of one year, suspended, on Count 2, with the sentences to run concurrently with each other and with her sentence in Case No. CF-2015-773. In Case No. CF- 2015-773, Appellant entered a plea of guilty and was convicted of Count 1: Unlawful Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance, Methamphetamine, felony. She was sentenced to a term of seven years, with all but the first 120 days suspended, and ordered to run concurrently with her sentences in Case No. CF-2014-506. On June 22, 2016, the State filed its first motion to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences alleging she violated probation by testing positive for Methamphetamine on 4/25/16, 5/5/16, 6/3/16 and 6/6/16; by testing positive for Amphetamine on 6/6/16; and by failing to conform to regulations of GPS monitoring. Judge Kistler revoked ninety days of Appellant’s suspended sentences. On November 8, 2016, the State filed in both cases a second motion to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences alleging she violated probation by testing positive for alcohol on 9/26/16, 9/28/16, and 10/5/16; and by committing the new offense of Count 1: Domestic Assault and Battery By Strangulation, as charged in Payne County District Court Case No. CF-2016-782. On -2- June 29, 2017, the State filed a third motion to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences that restated the violations alleged in the first and second motions, and adding only that she continued to violate GPS monitoring conditions. On July 24, 2017, the State filed an amended third motion to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences, that restated allegations in the previous motions, and added violations that Appellant committed the new offense of Public Intoxication, as charged in Payne County District Court Case No. CM-2017-1122, and that she had failed to maintain a stable address and failed to report change(s) of address. On July 25, 2017, the revocation hearing was held before Judge Kistler. At the start of the hearing, the State announced that it was striking the alleged violations of probation that were included in the first motion to revoke, and that were the basis of the revoca- tion of ninety days of Appellant’s suspended sentence in July of 2016. The State also announced that it would not put on evidence of the alleged violation Domestic Assault and Battery By Strangula- tion because of an uncooperative witness. -3- The State first called Jarod Knowles, a Stillwater police officer, who testified about Appellant’s public intoxication incident. Dee Miller, a DOC administrator for the Division of Community Sentenc- ing, testified about Appellant’s positive tests for drugs and alcohol; about her violations of GPS monitoring; and her failure to maintain a stable address and to report changes of address. In defense, Appellant’s mother testified about her mental disorders that affected her actions. Appellant also testified about her need for treatment and justified some of her actions that were alleged as violations. After hearing the evidence and arguments, Judge Kistler convicted Appellant of Public Intoxication and sentenced her to thirty days in the county jail. Judge Kistler found Appellant violated probation as alleged, but continued sentencing for prepara- tion of a pre-sentence investigation report to identify programs appropriate for Appellant both inside and outside of prison. On December 1, 2017, the sentencing hearing was held before Judge Kistler. The State called Kim Evans, a team supervisor with the Stillwater Probation and Parole office, who had reviewed the -4- Pre-Sentence Investigation Report. Evans testified about the contents of the report and corroborated its recommendation that Appellant’s suspended sentences be revoked. Miller again testified about Appellant’s violations, treatments and lack of success throughout her probation. Miller agreed that the only available option is revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentences. Appellant testified about events in her past that contributed to her problems. She asked to be sent to Eagle Ridge treatment facility rather than being revoked. Appellant’s mother testified about Appellant’s living arrangements and the reasons for those arrangements. The mother testified that Appellant was pregnant and that prison would not be best for her and her delivery. After hearing the evidence and arguments, Judge Kistler revoked three and one-half years of her suspended sentences, with the balances to remain suspended. Judge Kistler also ordered that, upon her release from confinement, Appellant would serve a twelve month term of post-confinement supervision with DOC probation and parole. -5- Appellant appeals asserting two propositions of error: PROPOSITION I: THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO EXTEND MS. HILL’S ORIGINAL SENTENCE BY THE ADDITION OF POST-IMPRISONMENT SUPERVI- SION. PROPOSITION II: THE DISTRICT COURT’S REVOCATION OF 31/2 YEARS OF APPELLANT’S SUSPENDED SENTENCES WAS EX- CESSIVE UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND SHOULD BE FAVORABLY MODIFIED. ANALYSIS In Proposition I, Appellant contends that Judge Kistler improperly extended the original term of her sentences in these cases by imposing the twelve month term of post-confinement supervision with DOC probation and parole, starting after she is released from the three and one-half year partial revocation of her suspended sentences. We find Appellant’s arguments are without merit because the twelve month term of post-confinement supervi- sion falls within the remaining balance of Appellant’s suspended sentences, and therefore does not extend the term of her original sentences. -6- Appellant was originally sentenced to terms of seven years, with the first 120 days to serve and approximately six years and eight months suspended. Judge Kistler previously revoked ninety days of Appellant’s suspended sentences, leaving approximately six years and five months suspended. Judge Kistler’s revocation of three and one-half years of Appellant’s suspended sentences leaves a balance of approximately two years and eleven months. The twelve month term of post-confinement supervision falls well within that two year and eleven month balance of the original term of Appellant’s sentences. Section 991a of Title 22 allows courts to impose such conditions of probation “at the time of sentencing or at any time during the suspended sentence.” 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 991a(A)(1). Appellant cites Friday v. State, 2016 OK CR 16, 387 P.3d 928; and Wells v. State, 2016 OK CR 28, 387 P.3d 966, to argue that the District Court is not authorized, pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 991a-21, to include in the order revoking her suspended sentence a term of post-imprisonment supervision. However, unlike Appel- lant’s partial revocation, Friday and Wells both involve revocations -7- in full, which eliminates the use of Section 991a to impose post- imprisonment supervision “during the suspended sentence.” 22 O.S.Supp.2014, § 991a(A)(1). Appellant has therefore failed to show that the District Court was without authority in this case to impose post-imprisonment supervision during the remaining terms of Appellant’s original suspended sentences Proposition I is denied. The decision of the trial court to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or in part is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. 22 O.S.Supp.2016, § 991b; Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, IT 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565. Judge Kistler had more than sufficient evidence to show that Appellant committed repeated violations of the terms and conditions of her probation. The record shows that Appellant has been given numerous opportunities to remain on probation. Judge Kistler’s decision to revoke three and one-half years of Appellant’s suspended sentences was not an abuse of discretion. Proposition II is denied. -8- DECISION The order of the District Court of Payne County revoking three and one-half years of Appellant’s suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAYNE COUNTY THE HON. STEPHEN R. KISTLER, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES IN THE APPEARANCES ON DISTRICT COURT APPEAL SARAH J. KENNEDY DANNY JOSEPH Attorney at Law Appellate Defense Counsel P. O. Box 674 P. O. Box 926 Perry, OK 73077 Norman, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT KAREN DIXON MIKE HUNTER CIERRA SALTAN Attorney General of Oklahoma Assistant District Attorneys THEODORE M. PEEPER Payne County Courthouse Assistant Attorney General 606 S. Husband St., Rm 111 313 N.E. 21st Street Stillwater, OK 74074 Oklahoma City, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE COUNSEL FOR THE STATE -9- OPINION BY: LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur RA/F -10-

Click Here To Download PDF