Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr. v The State Of Oklahoma
RE-2018-1287
Filed: Feb. 6, 2020
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery and related crimes. His conviction and sentence were revoked in full by the judge because he violated probation by committing new robberies with a firearm. In this case, some judges agreed with the decision, but one judge had a different opinion.
Decision
The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking in full Appellant's concurrent four year suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2015-2683 and CF-2016-534 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in revoking the appellant's suspended sentences?
- Did the trial court fail to take into consideration the presentence investigation report when determining the sentence?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the finding that the appellant violated probation by committing new criminal offenses?
- Did the trial court properly consider the nature and severity of the new convictions in the decision to revoke the suspended sentences?
Findings
- the court did not err in revoking the suspended sentences
- the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of probation violation
- the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
RE-2018-1287
Feb. 6, 2020
Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr.
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant, Darryn Lamar Chandler, Jr., appeals from the revocation in full of his concurrent four year suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2015-2683 and CF-2016-534 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Glenn Jones, District Judge.
In Case No. CF-2015-2683, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 – Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute – Marijuana; Count 2 – Possession of an Offensive Weapon While Committing a Felony; and Count 4 – Possession of an Imitation Controlled Dangerous Substance With Intent to Distribute. He was convicted and sentenced to terms of five years, all suspended but the first year, on Counts 1 and 2, and to one year imprisonment on Count 4, with all sentences ordered to run concurrently with each other and with Appellant’s sentences in Case No. CF-2016-534.
In Case No. CF-2016-534, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 – Robbery With a Firearm; and Count 2 – Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, to-wit: Robbery With a Firearm. He was convicted and sentenced on Counts 1 and 2 to terms of five years, all suspended but the first year, and ordered to run concurrently with each other and with Appellant’s sentences in Case No. CF-2015-2683.
On September 21, 2018, the State filed an application to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence alleging he violated probation by committing the new crimes of Count 1 – Robbery With a Firearm; Count 2 – Robbery With a Firearm; Count 3 – Robbery By Two or More Persons; Count 6 – Robbery By Two or More Persons; and Count 7 – Robbery By Two or More Persons, as charged in Case No. CF-2017-6465 in the District Court of Oklahoma County.
On November 27, 2018, the revocation hearing began before Judge Jones. At the hearing, the State presented evidence that Appellant and a co-defendant robbed a loan business in Oklahoma City. When they entered the business, Appellant pulled a gun, and the accomplice locked the door. The robbers were screaming and yelling wanting to know where the money was, and an employee got a bag of money out of a drawer and gave it to them. Appellant put the gun to one employee’s face and started dragging her by the shirt, asking where the rest of the money was. The accomplice held two other employees at gunpoint and made them lay down by a desk. The employee held by Appellant laid down on top of the other employees and told the robbers all of the money was in the drawers. The robbers went through the drawers, then left with a laptop, a purse, a bank bag, and three envelopes that contained about $800.00. Appellant presented no evidence.
After hearing the evidence and arguments, Judge Jones found Appellant violated probation by committing the offenses of Robbery With a Firearm and Robbery By Two or More Persons and announced that Appellant’s suspended sentences in both cases were revoked in full. After consulting with Appellant, counsel for Appellant requested a presentence investigation report. Judge Jones granted the request and continued the hearing until December 20, 2018.
On December 20, 2018, the DOC Pre Sentence Investigation report (“PSI”) was filed, and the revocation hearing resumed for sentencing. The State argued that Appellant committed a violent robbery with a firearm while on probation and should be revoked in full. Counsel argued that Appellant was a minimal participant in the crimes committed in both Case No. CF-2015-2683 and Case No. CF-2016-534 and that his less than ideal family background should be considered. Counsel claimed that the PSI shows opportunity and potential for a positive future for Appellant, but he needs substance abuse and mental health treatment. In rebuttal, the State noted the PSI did not include details of the alleged probation violations and thus the preparer of the report may not have been aware of those details. The State argued that Appellant’s background had already been considered as shown by the very low sentences in the two cases. Finally, the State gave details showing Appellant was more than a minimal participant in the crimes committed in the two cases.
Judge Jones began by noting that the preparer of the PSI was probably instructed not to detail the alleged violations because charges are still pending. Judge Jones agreed that the light sentences in the two cases indicated that Appellant’s background had already been taken into account. Judge Jones noted that Appellant violated probation by committing the same type of crime, robbery, for which he had been convicted. Judge Jones revoked Appellant’s concurrent four year suspended sentences in full.
Appellant appeals asserting one proposition of error:
PROPOSITION I: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PRESENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT RESULTING IN AN EXCESSIVE SENTENCE.
ANALYSIS
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. Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565. Judge Jones’ decision to revoke in full Appellant’s four year suspended sentences cannot be considered an abuse of discretion, when evidence was presented that Appellant violated probation by committing a very violent robbery with a firearm while he was on probation.
DECISION
The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking in full Appellant’s concurrent four year suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2015-2683 and CF-2016-534 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
Footnotes:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentencing for crime of robbery
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801 (2011) - Robbery defined
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801.1 (2011) - Robbery with a firearm
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 982 (2011) - Revocation of suspended sentences
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:
- Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565