Jose Figueroa Mesta v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2018-435

Filed: Jun. 20, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jose Figueroa Mesta appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the court. Judge Lumpkin wrote that Mesta's problems included not following rules like reporting his arrest or moving without telling the court. The court found he committed new crimes, which helped justify the revocation of his sentence. Mesta also had issues with being charged for attorney fees and costs of his incarceration, but those matters were not covered in this type of appeal. In the end, the decision to revoke Mesta’s suspended sentence was confirmed, and no one disagreed with this decision.

Decision

The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1 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 an error in assessing Appellant attorney fees exceeding the statutory amount?
• Did the trial court err in assessing the costs of incarceration due to Appellant's mental illness?
• Was the inclusion of post-imprisonment supervision in the revocation order valid?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentence?

Findings

• The court erred in addressing the attorney fees assessment as it is outside the scope of a revocation appeal.
• The court erred in addressing the costs of incarceration due to mental illness as it is outside the scope of a revocation appeal.
• The issue of post-imprisonment supervision is moot due to the amended revocation order.
• The decision to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
• The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence is affirmed.

RE-2018-435

Jun. 20, 2019

Jose Figueroa Mesta

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE:

Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1. On March 4, 2016, Appellant entered a plea of no contest in Case No. CF-2015-1 to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Within 1,000 Feet of a Park, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402(C)(1). The Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge, convicted Appellant and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, with all but the first eighty days suspended. On February 27, 2018, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence alleging Appellant failed to submit 1 probation reports; failed to report his arrest for public intoxication; moved back into Oklahoma without reporting it to the district court; committed the new crimes of Possession of a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, Within 2000 Feet of a School or Park, With the Intent to Distribute, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-401(B)(2) (Count 1); and Possession of CDS Without a Tax Stamp Affixed, in violation of 68 O.S.2011, § 450.8(B) as alleged in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2018-58 (Count 2). Following a hearing on the application Judge Parsley revoked Appellant’s remaining suspended sentence in full.

Appellant alleges in Proposition I the trial court erred when it assessed him attorney fees in the amount of $500. Appellant claims this assessment exceeded the amount allowed by statute for attorney fees. At Proposition II, Appellant argues he cannot be assessed the costs of his incarceration because he is mentally ill. These claims are outside the scope of a revocation appeal. The consequence of judicial revocation is to execute a penalty previously imposed in the judgment and sentence. Marutzky v. State, 1973 OK CR 398, T 5, 514 P.2d 430, 431. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order 2 executing the previously imposed sentence. See Rule 1.2(D)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 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. As this Court has noted on numerous occasions, the arguments regarding both attorney fees and incarceration costs are administrative in nature and are not properly presented as part of the appeal of an order revoking a suspended sentence. Rule 1.2(D)(4), Rules, supra; Nesbitt, 2011 OK CR 19, I 25, 255 P.3d at 441; Grimes, 2011 OK CR 16, I 17, 251 P.3d at 755. Because these issues do not concern the validity of the revocation order issued in this case, we decline to further address them in this appeal. Id. Propositions I and II are denied.

In his third proposition of error, Appellant objects to this revocation order including post-imprisonment supervision. The State concedes the point but argues this issue is moot because Judge Parsley entered an amended revocation order on January 17, 2019, 3 deleting post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. 1 We agree. Based on the trial court’s amended revocation order, this proposition is moot. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or in part is within the sound discretion of the trial court and such decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565. An ‘abuse of discretion’ has been defined by this Court as a ‘clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application. Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, I 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183. Appellant has not established that Judge Parsley abused his discretion.

DECISION

The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1 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. 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402(C)(1)
2. 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-401(B)(2)
3. 68 O.S.2011, § 450.8(B)
4. Marutzky v. State, 1973 OK CR 398, T 5, 514 P.2d 430, 431
5. Rule 1.2(D)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019)
6. Nesbitt v. State, 2011 OK CR 19, I 5, 255 P.3d 435, 437
7. Grimes v. State, 2011 OK CR 16, I 17, 251 P.3d 749, 755
8. Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565
9. Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, I 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 (2012) - Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Within 1,000 Feet of a Park
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-401 (2012) - Possession of a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, Within 2000 Feet of a School or Park, With the Intent to Distribute
• Okla. Stat. tit. 68 § 450.8 (2011) - Possession of CDS Without a Tax Stamp Affixed
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1.2 (2019) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

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:

• Marutzky v. State, 1973 OK CR 398, I 5, 514 P.2d 430, 431
• 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
• Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, I 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183