Jose Abraham Sanchez v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2019-683

Filed: Jan. 21, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jose Abraham Sanchez appealed his conviction for his suspended sentence being revoked. The conviction and sentence were originally for five years in prison, with all but four weekends suspended. There was a dissent regarding the decision. In this case, Sanchez had a suspended sentence for previous crimes, but the state claimed he violated the terms of his probation. However, the appeals court found that some of the violations happened after his probation had ended, which shouldn't count against him. Overall, the court decided that the judge had made a mistake by revoking his entire five-year sentence when only technical violations were proven, which should limit the revocation to six months. So, the appeals court affirmed the revocation but ordered that the time be modified to just six months instead of five years.

Decision

The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Cleveland County District Court Case No. CF-2009-183 is AFFIRMED and this matter is REMANDED to the District Court of Cleveland County for issuance of an amended revocation order MODIFYING the revocation to six months. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18 App. (2021), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an appropriate basis for the revocation of the suspended sentence based on alleged new crimes occurring after the sentence had expired?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion by revoking Appellant's entire five-year suspended sentence instead of limiting it to six months based on proven technical violations?
• Was the evidence sufficient to prove the existence of technical violations by a preponderance of the evidence?
• Did the trial court consider violations that were not supported by the statute limiting revocation based on technical violations?

Findings

• the court erred in considering new crime violations occurring after the expiration of the suspended sentence
• the court erred by imposing a five-year revocation instead of a six-month revocation for technical violations
• the evidence was sufficient to prove three technical violations occurred
• the trial court abused its discretion in the revocation of Appellant's five-year suspended sentence

RE-2019-683

Jan. 21, 2021

Jose Abraham Sanchez

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, JUDGE:

Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Cleveland County District Court Case No. CF-2009-183. On June 1, 2012, Appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment, with all but four weekends suspended. On March 21, 2017, the State filed an Amended Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence alleging Appellant failed to report, complete substance abuse evaluation, complete community service, complete a victim impact panel, complete DUI school, and complete four weekends in the county jail.

On August 7, 2019, the State filed a Second Amended Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence further alleging Appellant committed the new crimes Possession of CDS with Intent to Distribute (Count 1), Possession of a Firearm AFCF (Count 2), Possession of a Firearm with a Defaced Serial Number (Count 3), Possession of an Offensive Weapon (Count 4), and Concealing Stolen Property (Count 5) as alleged in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2019-2742. Following a revocation hearing, the Honorable Lori Walkley, District Judge, revoked what remained of Appellant’s five-year suspended sentence. This was Appellant’s first revocation in this case.

Judge Walkley’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, ¶ 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, ¶ 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183.

Appellant argues and the State concedes that consideration of the alleged new crime probation violations was inappropriate in this case because the new crimes occurred after Appellant’s suspended sentence had expired. Citing Frazier v. State, 1989 OK CR 78, ¶ 2-6, 793 P.2d 1365, 1365-66, Appellant notes that a trial court is prohibited from revoking a probationer’s suspended sentence based on a probation violation that occurred after the suspended sentence has expired. Appellant was convicted and sentenced on May 24, 2012, to five years imprisonment with all but four weekends suspended. Appellant’s suspended sentence expired on May 23, 2017. The crimes alleged in Case No. CF-2019-2742 occurred on June 19, 2019, which is over two years beyond the expiration of Appellant’s probationary term.

This claim has merit. Relying on 22 O.S.2011, § 991b(B), Appellant next argues that aside from the new crime violations, the State only proved he committed three technical violations which should have limited any revocation to six months. The State concedes the merit of this argument as well. 22 O.S.2011, § 991b(B) limits revocation based on technical violations to six months in jail as long as the violations do not appear on the list of exceptions provided by 22 O.S.2011 § 991b(C). None of the exceptions to the six-month limit apply to Appellant’s circumstances. This claim also has merit.

The evidence in this case was sufficient to prove three technical violations occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, ¶ 5, 306 P.3d 554, 556. This justified the revocation of up to six months of Appellant’s suspended sentence. 22 O.S.2011, § 991b. Judge Walkley’s revocation of five years was not justified in this case. Walker, 1989 OK CR 65, ¶ 5, 780 P.2d at 1183; 22 O.S.2011, § 991b. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant’s five-year suspended sentence in whole based on the three technical violations proven in this case.

DECISION

The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence in Cleveland County District Court Case No. CF-2009-183 is AFFIRMED and this matter is REMANDED to the District Court of Cleveland County for issuance of an amended revocation order MODIFYING the revocation to six months. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18 App. (2021), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.Supp.2017, § 2-402 (B)(1)
2. 47 O.S.Supp.2018, § 11-902
3. 63 O.S.2011, § 2-405 (B)
4. 21 O.S.2011, § 1220
5. 47 O.S.Supp.2020, § 6-303 (B)
6. 22 O.S.2011, § 991b(B)
7. 22 O.S.2011, § 991b(C)
8. 22 O.S.2011, § 991b
9. Jones v. State, 1988 OK CR 20, ¶ 8, 749 P.2d 563, 565.
10. Walker v. State, 1989 OK CR 65, ¶ 5, 780 P.2d 1181, 1183.
11. Frazier v. State, 1989 OK CR 78, ¶ 2-6, 793 P.2d 1365, 1365-66.
12. Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, ¶ 5, 306 P.3d 554, 556.
13. Walker, 1989 OK CR 65, ¶ 5, 780 P.2d at 1183.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-402 (2017) - Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-902 (2018) - Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol
• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-405 (2011) - Unlawful Possession of Paraphernalia
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1220 (2011) - Transportation of Beer in an Opened Container
• Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-303 (2020) - Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under Suspension, Revocation, or Cancellation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b (2011) - Revocation of Suspended Sentence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b(B) (2011) - Limitation on Revocation Based on Technical Violations
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b(C) (2011) - Exceptions to Limit on Revocation

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:

• 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.
• Frazier v. State, 1989 OK CR 78, I 2-6, 793 P.2d 1365, 1365-66.
• Tilden v. State, 2013 OK CR 10, I 5, 306 P.3d 554, 556.