Jaren Glenn Sellers v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2018-925

Filed: May 23, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jaren Glenn Sellers appealed his conviction for revoking his suspended sentences. Conviction and sentence of seven years of suspended sentences were upheld. Judge Hudson dissented.

Decision

The order of the district court of Pontotoc County revoking a portion of Appellant's suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2012-390 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there evidence to support the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in revoking a portion of the suspended sentences?
• Was the burden of proof sufficiently met regarding the violation of the terms of the suspension order?

Findings

• the court did not err in granting the State's application to revoke the suspended sentences
• the revocation was not excessive
• the decision to revoke a portion of Appellant's suspended sentences is affirmed

RE-2018-925

May 23, 2019

Jaren Glenn Sellers

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Jaren Glenn Sellers appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentences in Pontotoc County District Court Case No. CF-2012-390. On September 13, 2013, Appellant entered negotiated Alford pleas to First Degree Rape (21 O.S.2011, § 1114) (Count 1) and Forcible Sodomy (21 O.S.2011, § 888) (Count 2).¹ He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years on each count, all suspended, to be served concurrently. On January 16, 2018, the State filed an amended application to revoke the suspended sentences alleging Appellant committed the new crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery. On August 27, 2018, a hearing on the application to revoke was held before the Honorable Gregory Pollard, Special Judge. Judge Pollard granted the State’s application and revoked seven years of Appellant’s ten-year suspended sentences.

On appeal, Appellant asserts the revocation was excessive. We disagree.

ANALYSIS

At a hearing where the State seeks revocation of a suspended sentence, the question is whether the suspended portion of the sentence imposed should be executed, and the court makes a factual determination as to whether the terms of the suspension order have been violated. Robinson U. State, 1991 OK CR 44, I 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322. The violation “need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence.” Tilden U. State, 2013 OK CR 10, IT 5, 306 P.3d 554, 556. A trial court’s decision to revoke a suspended sentence should not be overturned absent a finding of an abuse of discretion. Jones U. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565. We do not find the decision to revoke seven years of Appellant’s suspended sentences to be an abuse of discretion. See State v. Kudron, 1991 OK CR 92, I 19, 816 P.2d 567, 570-71 (“the credibility of witnesses and the weight given their testimony is within the exclusive province of the trier of fact, who may believe or disbelieve the witnesses as it desires”). 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, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d at 565. Judge Pollard considered all of the evidence presented in the revocation hearing. His decision to partially revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence cannot be considered an abuse of discretion. Id.

DECISION

The order of the district court of Pontotoc County revoking a portion of Appellant’s suspended judgments and sentences in Case No. CF-2012-390 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. An Alford plea permits a defendant to maintain his innocence while agreeing to forego his right to a trial. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).
2. Robinson U. State, 1991 OK CR 44, I 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322.
3. Tilden U. State, 2013 OK CR 10, IT 5, 306 P.3d 554, 556.
4. Jones U. State, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565.
5. State v. Kudron, 1991 OK CR 92, I 19, 816 P.2d 567, 570-71.
6. Jones, 1988 OK CR 20, I 8, 749 P.2d at 565.
7. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1114 (2011) - First Degree Rape
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 888 (2011) - Forcible Sodomy
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (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:

• Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, ¶ 3, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322.
• Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, ¶ 5, 306 P.3d 554, 556.
• Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, ¶ 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565.
• State v. Kudron, 1991 OK CR 92, ¶ 19, 816 P.2d 567, 570-71.