Dakota Michael Shane Bell v The State of Oklahoma
RE-2018-855
Filed: Sep. 26, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Dakota Michael Shane Bell appealed his conviction for violating the terms of his suspended sentences. His convictions were for Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony and Unlawful Use of a Vehicle, and he was sentenced to five years in prison for each, with most of that time suspended. A judge revoked these suspended sentences because Bell did not follow the rules, such as not paying fees, not showing up for meetings, and failing drug tests. Bell argued that he should have been given another chance because of his personal problems, but the court disagreed and found that the state proved he violated his probation. The court decided to keep Bell's revocation of his suspended sentences in place. There was also a disagreement about the paperwork regarding time served, but that issue was fixed later, so it was no longer a problem. The decision to revoke was upheld. Judge Kuehn dissented.
Decision
The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952 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 abuse of discretion in revoking Appellant's suspended sentences based on alleged personal disadvantages?
- did the trial court err in omitting credit for time served and post-imprisonment supervision in the original revocation order?
Findings
- The court did not err in revoking the suspended sentences as the State proved multiple violations of probation.
- The issue regarding credit for time served and post-imprisonment supervision is moot due to the amended revocation orders correcting the errors.
- The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences is affirmed.
RE-2018-855
Sep. 26, 2019
Dakota Michael Shane Bell
Appellant
v
The State of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952. Appellant entered a plea of guilty April 5, 2017, to Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283 (Count 2) in Case No. CF-2016-375; and Unlawful Use of a Vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-102, in Case No. CF-2016-952. He was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment in each case, with all but the first sixty days suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
On January 22, 2018, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence in Case No. CF-2016-375 and First Amended Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence in Case No. CF-2016-952. The petitions alleged Appellant failed to pay District Attorney Reimbursement fees as ordered; absconded; failed to provide proof of employment; failed to provide proof of community service; and failed to provide proof he completed mental health and substance evaluations and followed any recommendations. Following a revocation hearing, the Honorable Stephen Kistler, Associate District Judge, found the State had proven the allegations and passed sentencing to May 16, 2018, for Appellant to come into compliance. Appellant failed to appear on May 16, 2018, and a warrant was issued.
The parties appeared again on July 24, 2018, and following argument from the parties, the trial court revoked Appellant’s remaining sentence in full. On June 15, 2018, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections filed a violation report alleging Appellant failed a drug test (Methamphetamine); to report; to appear for court; to provide his address to probation officers; to provide proof of community service; and to provide proof he completed mental health and substance abuse evaluations and follow the recommendations made in the evaluations.
On July 11, 2019, the State filed a Motion to Supplement the Record with the Clerk of this Court seeking to include in the appeal record the First Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation filed in with the clerk of the district court in each case. The State’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal is GRANTED. See Rule 3.11(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019).
In his first proposition, Appellant argues revocation of his suspended sentences was an abuse of discretion because he was “plagued by personal disadvantages.” According to Appellant, Judge Kistler abused his discretion when he refused to provide Appellant with an additional opportunity to remain in the community. This argument is without merit. A suspended sentence is a matter of grace. Hagar U. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 8, 990 P.2d 894, 898; Demry v. State, 1999 OK CR 31, I 12, 986 P.2d 1145, 1147. The State must only prove one violation of probation in order to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence in full. Tilden v. 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). Here, the State filed a petition setting forth the grounds for the revocation and the State established multiple probation violations. 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 U. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565. Appellant was repeatedly shown leniency in this case. Appellant admitted to several violations of his probation. Further, Appellant never provided any proof to the trial court of his claimed minimal compliance with the rules and conditions of his probation. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion.
At Proposition II Appellant complains that the original revocation order omits credit for time served by the Appellant and added post-imprisonment supervision. The trial court filed First Amended Judgment and Sentences After Revocation with the clerk of the trial court on July 11, 2019. The amended revocation orders correct the errors alleged in this proposition. As a result, this proposition is moot.
DECISION
The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952 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.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAYNE COUNTY, THE HONORABLE STEPHEN KISTLER, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES AT REVOCATION
VIRGINIA BANKS
116 W. 7TH, , STE. 232
STILLWATER, OK 74074
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
RICKI WALTERSCHEID
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
SIERRA PFEIFFER
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
606 S. HUSBAND, STE. 111
STILLWATER, OK 74074
COUNSEL FOR STATE
MIKE HUNTER
OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL
TESSA HENRY
ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.E. 21st STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.
LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR
KUEHN, V.P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR
ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283
- 47 O.S.2011, § 4-102
- Rule 3.11(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019)
- Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, ¶ 8, 990 P.2d 894, 898
- Demry v. State, 1999 OK CR 31, ¶ 12, 986 P.2d 1145, 1147
- Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, ¶ 10, 306 P.3d 554, 557
- McQueen v. State, 1987 OK CR 162, ¶ 2, 740 P.2d 744, 745
- Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, ¶ 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283 (2014) - Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 4-102 (2011) - Unlawful Use of a Vehicle
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.11 (2019) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2019) - Mandate
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:
- Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35, I 8, 990 P.2d 894, 898
- Demry v. State, 1999 OK CR 31, I 12, 986 P.2d 1145, 1147
- 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
- Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565