Robert Joseph Clark, Jr. v State Of Oklahoma

RE-2018-425

Filed: Jun. 13, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Robert Joseph Clark, Jr. appealed his conviction for possession of drugs and other offenses. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the court. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-8289, CF-2015-3126 and CF-2015-3693 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 abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke Clark's suspended sentences in full?
• Did the revocation of Clark's suspended sentences result in an excessive sentence?
• Was there merit in Clark's claim regarding the excessiveness of the sentence upon revocation?
• Did the trial court properly consider the violations of probation conditions when revoking Clark's suspended sentences?

Findings

• The revocation of Clark's suspended sentences is affirmed.

RE-2018-425

Jun. 13, 2019

Robert Joseph Clark, Jr.

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: On April 9, 2015, Appellant Clark, represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to Count 1, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (CDS) (Methamphetamine) and Count 2, Possession of a CDS (Psilocybin) in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2014-8289. Sentencing was deferred for five (5) years, subject to terms and conditions of probation. On September 9, 2015, Clark’s sentence in Case No. CF-2014-8289 was accelerated and he was sentenced to eight (8) years each for Counts 1 and 2, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. That same date, Clark entered a guilty plea to Count 1, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Count 2, Possession of a CDS in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2015-3126. He was sentenced to eight (8) years for each count, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. Clark’s sentences in Case No. CF-2015-3126 were ordered to be served concurrently with his sentences in Case No. CF-2014-8289. Clark also entered a guilty plea in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2015-3693, Possession of a CDS, and was sentenced to three (3) years, all suspended, subject to terms and conditions of probation. The sentence in Case No. CF-2015-3693 was ordered to be served consecutively to his sentence in Case No. CF-2015-3126.

On March 24, 2017, the State filed an Application to Revoke Clark’s suspended sentences in all three of the above-referenced cases, alleging Clark committed new offenses as alleged in Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2016-7039 (possession of stolen property and possession of drug paraphernalia) and CM-2016-2833 (obstructing an officer and failing to wear a safety belt). At the conclusion of a revocation hearing held April 17, 2018, the District Court of Oklahoma County, the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, revoked Clark’s suspended sentences in full. From this Judgment and Sentence, Clark appeals.

Clark’s sole proposition of error alleges that revocation of his suspended sentences, in full, was an abuse of discretion, resulting in an excessive sentence. The revocation of Clark’s suspended sentences is AFFIRMED. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, II 3-4, 306 P.3d 554, 555-556; Rule 1.2(D)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 18, App. (2019); Nesbitt v. State, 2011 OK CR 19, I 5, 255 P.3d 435, 437; Grimes v. State, 2011 OK CR 16, I 17, 251 P.3d 749, 755. We examine the basis for the factual determination and consider whether the court abused its discretion. Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565; Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, I 6, 675 P.2d 451, 453; Sparks v. State, 1987 OK CR 247, I 5, 745 P.2d 751, 752. This Court has repeatedly held that violation of even one condition of probation is sufficient to justify revocation of a suspended sentence. Tilden, 2013 OK CR 10, I 10, 306 P.3d at 557; McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, I 2, 740 P.2d. 744, 745.

Based on the appeal record presented in this matter, we find no merit in Clark’s claim that revocation of his suspended sentence in full was excessive and no abuse of discretion in Judge Elliott’s decision to revoke Clark’s suspended sentences in full.

DECISION
The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County revoking Appellant’s suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-8289, CF-2015-3126 and CF-2015-3693 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.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, II 3-4, 306 P.3d 554, 555-556
2. Rule 1.2(D)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 1 18, App. (2019)
3. Nesbitt v. State, 2011 OK CR 19, I 5, 255 P.3d 435, 437
4. Grimes v. State, 2011 OK CR 16, I 17, 251 P.3d 749, 755
5. Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565
6. Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, I 6, 675 P.2d 451, 453
7. Sparks v. State, 1987 OK CR 247, I 5, 745 P.2d 751, 752
8. Tilden, 2013 OK CR 10, I 10, 306 P.3d at 557
9. McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, I 2, 740 P.2d. 744, 745
10. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019)

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, II 3-4, 306 P.3d 554, 555-556
• Nesbitt v. State, 2011 OK CR 19, I 5, 255 P.3d 435, 437
• Grimes v. State, 2011 OK CR 16, I 17, 251 P.3d 749, 755
• Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565
• Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, I 6, 675 P.2d 451, 453
• Sparks v. State, 1987 OK CR 247, I 5, 745 P.2d 751, 752
• McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, I 2, 740 P.2d 744, 745