James Monroe Jones v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2018-357

Filed: Apr. 2, 2018

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

James Monroe Jones appealed his conviction for violating probation. Conviction and sentence were upheld by the court. Judge Henderson found that Jones violated his probation due to new crimes. Jones disagreed and said he didn’t get a fair chance to defend himself because his lawyer didn’t prepare well. The court decided he still didn’t show this affected the outcome. The court's decision to revoke his probation and sentences was confirmed, and the case was not changed.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's concurrent suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 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.

Issues

• Was there a violation of Appellant's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and Oklahoma State Constitution due to the overruling of his objections relating to discovery?
• Did defense counsel fail to prepare adequately for trial, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel that prejudiced Appellant?

Findings

• the court did not err in overruling Appellant's objections relating to discovery
• the allegations against Appellant were sufficient to support the revocation of his suspended sentences
• the court did not find counsel's performance prejudiced the defense
• the order of the District Court revoking Appellant's suspended sentences is AFFIRMED

RE-2018-357

Apr. 2, 2018

James Monroe Jones

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant, James Monroe Jones, appeals from the revocation of his concurrent suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, by the Honorable Timothy R. Henderson, District Judge. On June 16, 2010, Appellant entered pleas of guilty in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290. In Case No. CF-2008-7440, Appellant was convicted of two counts of Concealing Stolen Property, after former conviction of a felony, and was sentenced to a term of fifteen years on each count, with all except the first five years suspended and the sentences to be served concurrently with each other. In Case No. CF-2010-130, Appellant was convicted of Count 2 – Second Degree Burglary, after former conviction of a felony; Count 4 – Possession of CDS, after former conviction of a felony; and Count 5 – Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, after former conviction of a felony, and was sentenced to terms of fifteen years on each count, with all except the first five years suspended and the sentences to be served concurrently with each other. In Case No. CF-2010-290, Appellant was convicted of Concealing Stolen Property, after former conviction of a felony, and was sentenced to a term of fifteen years, with all except the first five years suspended. All of the sentences in all three cases were ordered to be served concurrently with each other. On May 1, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere in Case No. CF-2013-6519 to one amended count of Concealing Stolen Property, after former conviction of two or more felony convictions. He was convicted and sentenced to a term of ten years, with all except the first one year suspended and ordered to run concurrently with Appellant’s sentences in Case Nos. CF-2010-130 and CF-2010-290.

On August 26, 2016, the State filed applications to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences in all four cases, CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290 and CF-2013-6519, alleging he violated probation by (1) failing to report as directed; (2) failing to report change of address; and (3) committing the new crime of Domestic Assault and Battery, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CM-2016-1153. On March 7, 2018, the State filed amended applications to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences in all four cases adding two more alleged violations of probation that Appellant (4) committed the new crime of Domestic Abuse, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CM-2017-1850; and (5) committed the new crimes of Count 1 – Robbery With an Imitation Firearm, Count 2 – Burglary in the Second Degree, Count 3 – Aggravated Eluding a Police Officer, Count 4 – Conspiracy to Commit Burglary in the Second Degree, Count 5 – False Personation, and Count 6 – Possession of CDS, all as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2018-449.

On April 2, 2018, the hearing on the State’s applications to revoke was held before Judge Henderson. During the hearing, Appellant’s counsel objected to the State’s evidence claiming adequate discovery had not been provided. Counsel complained because she had not received any police reports or statements made by the witnesses that would allow preparation of a defense. Counsel acknowledged that she had not requested discovery and had not gone to the district attorney’s office to review the case file. Judge Henderson noted that Appellant had received copies of the applications to revoke and copies of probable cause affidavits and denied the objections. After hearing the evidence and arguments, Judge Henderson found Appellant violated probation by committing the new crime of Domestic Assault and Battery, as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CM-2016-1153; and by committing the new crimes of Count 1 – Robbery With an Imitation Firearm, Count 2 – Burglary in the Second Degree, Count 3 – Aggravated Eluding a Police Officer, and Count 6 – Possession of CDS, all as charged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2018-449. Judge Henderson found the State had not proven the other alleged violations of probation. Judge Henderson revoked in full Appellant’s ten year suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, and CF-2010-290, and his nine year suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2013-6519, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant appeals asserting two propositions of error:

PROPOSITION I: THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MR. JONES’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE II § 7 OF THE OKLAHOMA STATE CONSTITUTION

PROPOSITION II: DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO PREPARE ADEQUATELY FOR TRIAL, AND SUCH INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PREJUDICED MR. JONES.

ANALYSIS

In Proposition I, Appellant argues that, by overruling his objections relating to discovery, Judge Henderson denied Appellant the opportunity to prepare a defense, and thus deprived him of due process. Appellant acknowledges that his counsel during the revocation proceedings failed to request any discovery, and that his defense should have been prepared before Judge Henderson overruled Appellant’s objections during the revocation hearing. Judge Henderson did not deny Appellant the opportunity to prepare a defense, and did not deprive him of due process. Morrissey U. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (defendants have minimum due process rights, which include the disclosure of evidence against him). Proposition I is denied.

In Proposition II, Appellant argues that his counsel was ineffective by failing to request discovery and thus failing to prepare adequately for the revocation hearing. He claims that, if counsel had been adequately prepared, the District Court may have found him guilty of fewer probation violations and his suspended sentences may not have been revoked in full. There are two components to consider when determining if counsel was ineffective. Strickland U. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Id. The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice that course should be followed. Id. at 697. As shown by his own arguments, Appellant has not shown that his counsel’s performance prejudiced the defense. Id. at 697. Appellant only argues that prepared defense counsel may have prejudiced him during his revocation proceeding. Appellant has not shown how discovery and further preparation could have changed the result of his revocation proceeding. Strickland, supra. Evidence at his revocation hearing, unchallenged in this appeal, showed that Appellant committed five new crimes while on probation, at least three of which were felonies. Moreover, Appellant basically admits that some violations of probation were proven, and even one is sufficient to justify revocation. Tilden V. 6 State, 2013 OK CR 10, I 10, 306 P.3d. 554, 557 (citing McQueen V. State, 1987 OK CR 162, I 2, 740 P.2d. 744, 745). Proposition II is denied.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant’s concurrent suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2008-7440, CF-2010-130, CF-2010-290, and CF-2013-6519 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.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Morrissey U. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (defendants have "minimum" due process rights, which include the "disclosure of evidence against him").
2. Strickland U. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
3. Tilden V. State, 2013 OK CR 10, ¶ 10, 306 P.3d. 554, 557 (citing McQueen V. State, 1987 OK CR 162, ¶ 2, 740 P.2d. 744, 745).
4. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Concealing Stolen Property
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1431 (2011) - Second Degree Burglary
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401 (2011) - Possession of CDS
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 421 (2011) - Conspiracy to Commit a Felony
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 791 (2011) - Robbery With an Imitation Firearm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1435 (2011) - Burglary in the Second Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540A (2011) - Aggravated Eluding a Police Officer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1531 (2011) - False Personation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 (2011) - Possession of CDS
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991a (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:

• Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
• Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, I 10, 306 P.3d. 554, 557
• McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, I 2, 740 P.2d. 744, 745