Frank Revilla Paiz, Jr. v The State Of Oklahoma
RE-2018-1039
Filed: Sep. 12, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Frank Revilla Paiz, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. Conviction and sentence upheld were a total of 2,495 days (about 6.8 years) of his suspended sentences due to probation violations. Judge Kuehn dissented.
Decision
The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Woodward County Case Nos. CF-2016-114, CF-2016-117, and CF-2017-142 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 delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there an excessive revocation of appellant's suspended sentences?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing?
- Did the trial court properly consider other sanctions before imposing the revocation?
- Was the basis for the revocation justified given the stipulated violations of probation?
- Was the trial court's determination consistent with previous rulings on probation violations?
Findings
- The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED.
- No abuse of discretion was found in the decision to revoke Paiz's suspended sentences.
- The claim that revocation was excessive due to the change in law was not meritorious.
- Violating even one condition of probation justifies revocation of a suspended sentence.
RE-2018-1039
Sep. 12, 2019
Frank Revilla Paiz, Jr.
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
ROWLAND, JUDGE: On January 4, 2017, Appellant Paiz, represented by counsel, plead guilty to Possession of CDS – Methamphetamine (Count 2), Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 4), Driving Without Driver’s License (Count 5), Failure to Maintain Insurance or Security (Count 6), and Failure to Pay Taxes Due to State (Count 7) in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-114. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for Count 2 and one year imprisonment for Count 4, with all but the first year suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. The sentences were to be served concurrently. That same day, Paiz entered a guilty plea to Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance – Methamphetamine (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 2) in Woodward County Case No. CF-2016-117. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for Count 1 and one year imprisonment for Count 2, with all but the first year suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with each other and with the sentences assessed in Case No. CF-2016-114.
On June 2, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Paiz’s suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2016-114 and CF-2016-117, alleging he committed the new offense of Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance – Methamphetamine as charged in Woodward County Case No. CF-2017-142 and that he failed to pay court costs and prosecution reimbursement fees. Paiz subsequently entered a guilty plea to the charge in Case No. CF-2017-142, and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, to be entirely suspended upon successful completion of a Department of Corrections (DOC) approved drug treatment program. The remaining on Paiz’s suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2016-114 and CF-2016-117 were revoked in full, and were ordered to be served concurrently with his sentence in Case No. F-2017-142. The sentences were to remain suspended pursuant to Paiz’s completion of a drug treatment program. The court ordered that the suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2016-114 and CF-2016-117 would be revoked if Paiz committed any future probation violation.
On August 14, 2018, the State filed an Application to Revoke in all three cases alleging Paiz violated his terms and conditions of probation after being charged with Carrying Weapons in Woodward County Case No. CM-2018-269. Paiz also failed to schedule a required hearing with the Court Clerk and failed to pay prosecutorial reimbursement and restitution fees. On September 10, 2018, the State amended the application, adding probation violations of possessing methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and knives. At a revocation hearing conducted September 28, 2018, Paiz stipulated to the allegations in the State’s Amended Application to Revoke. At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Court of Woodward County, the Honorable Don A. Work, Associate District Judge, revoked a total of 2,495 days (approximately 6.8 years) of Paiz’s suspended sentences. From this Judgment and Sentence Paiz appeals and raises the sole proposition that the 2,495-day revocation was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion.
The revocation of Paiz’s suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. Paiz argues that because simple possession of a controlled dangerous substance became a misdemeanor offense effective July 1, 2017, the trial court’s revocation of his suspended sentences is excessive. He also claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider a wide range of other sanctions before imposing the 2,495 day revocation. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. We examine the basis for the factual determination and consider whether the court abused its discretion. This Court has repeatedly held that violation of even one condition of probation is sufficient to justify revocation of a suspended sentence. Paiz stipulated twice to violating multiple terms of his probation, which included the commission of other criminal offenses. Based on the appeal record presented in this matter, we find no merit in Paiz’s claim that revocation of his suspended sentences was excessive and no abuse of discretion in Judge Work’s decision to revoke Paiz’s suspended sentences.
DECISION The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentences in Woodward County Case Nos. CF-2016-114, CF-2016-117, and CF-2017-142 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 delivery and filing of this decision.
Footnotes:
- Fines of $500.00 for Count 2, $250.00 for Counts 4 and 7, and $150.00 for Counts 5 and 6 were also imposed.
- Fines of $500.00 for Count 1 and $150.00 for Count 2 were also imposed.
- Paiz's brief alleges that the 2,495 day total constitutes a total revocation of the seven year suspended sentences assessed in Case Nos. CF-2016-114 and CF-2016-117 less time served. This constitutes a partial revocation of his suspended ten year sentence in Case No. CF-2017-142 and leaves exactly three years remaining on Paiz's suspended sentence in that case.
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, 3-4, 306 P.3d 554, 555-56
- Nesbitt v. State, 2011 OK CR 19, 5, 255 P.3d 435, 437
- Grimes v. State, 2011 OK CR 16, 17, 251 P.3d 749, 755
- Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565
- Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, 6, 675 P.2d 451, 453
- Sparks v. State, 1987 OK CR 247, 5, 745 P.2d 751, 752
- McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, 2, 740 P.2d 744, 745