Katlin Maye Ford v The State Of Oklahoma

RE-2020-452

Filed: Sep. 30, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Katlin Maye Ford appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. Conviction and sentence were ten years, all suspended. No justices dissented. In this case, Katlin didn't follow the rules about paying restitution, so her suspended sentence was revoked. Katlin argued that she should have had a lawyer to help her, and the court didn't make sure she knew what waiving her right to a lawyer meant. The court agreed with her, stating that she didn't properly waive her right to a lawyer, so they decided to reverse the lower court's decision. Thus, her case will go back to the district court for more proceedings.

Decision

Therefore, Appellant's stipulation to the State's Application to Vacate Order Suspending Execution of Sentence is VACATED and the order of the District Court of Carter County revoking Appellant's suspended judgment and sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there a denial of the right to due process when the court failed to appoint counsel or obtain a valid waiver of counsel?
• Was there a denial of the right to due process when the court denied the request for court-appointed counsel?
• Did the court abuse its discretion when it revoked Appellant's suspended sentence because any failure to pay restitution was not willful?

Findings

• The court erred by failing to obtain a valid waiver of counsel.
• The order of the District Court of Carter County revoking Appellant's suspended judgment and sentence is reversed and remanded.

RE-2020-452

Sep. 30, 2021

Katlin Maye Ford

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE:

Katlin Maye Ford appeals from the order of the District Court of Carter County revoking her suspended sentence in Case No. CF-2018-18. Appellant pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2011 § 645, and was sentenced to ten years incarceration, all suspended. On October 23, 2018, the State filed an application to vacate order suspending execution of Appellant’s suspended sentence in CF-2018-18, alleging Appellant failed to pay restitution as ordered. On November 21, 2018, Appellant, pro se, waived her statutory right to an attorney and stipulated that she had failed to pay restitution as ordered. Following Appellant’s stipulation, the case was continued for sentencing to allow Appellant to come into compliance. On June 24, 2020, the District Court revoked three years of Appellant’s ten-year sentence. It is from the revocation of this suspended sentence that Appellant now appeals, raising the following propositions of error:

1. Appellant was denied her right to due process when the court failed to appoint counsel or obtain a valid waiver of counsel;
2. Appellant was denied her right to due process when the court denied her request for court-appointed counsel; and
3. The court abused its discretion when it revoked Appellant’s suspended sentence because any failure to pay restitution was not willful.

ANALYSIS

In Proposition I, Appellant asserts that the trial court failed to obtain a valid waiver of her statutory right to counsel. The person whose suspended sentence is being considered for revocation at the hearing shall have the right to be represented by counsel. 22 O.S.Supp.2018, § 991b(F). The right to counsel may be waived if done knowingly and voluntarily, but waiver will not be lightly presumed. The trial judge must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. Painter v. State, 1988 OK CR 224, q10, 762 P.2d 990, 992 (citations omitted). This Court reviews the trial court’s decision regarding the defendant’s waiver of counsel for an abuse of discretion. Mathis U. State, 2012 OK CR 1, I 18, 271 P.3d 67, 75; Parker v. State, 1976 OK CR 293, I 9, 556 P.2d 1298, 1301. This standard demands that Appellant prove the lower court came to a clearly erroneous conclusion one that is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts presented. State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, I 5, 298 P.3d 1192, 1194. Whether there has been a valid waiver of right to counsel is to be determined from the total circumstances of the individual case including background, experience and conduct of the accused. Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, I 12, 909 P.2d 783, 788 (citations omitted). All that is required for an effective election for self-representation is that the defendant have full knowledge or adequate warning concerning this right and a clear intent to exercise it. This is so the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes wide open. Lay U. State, 2008 OK CR 7, I 10, 179 P.3d 615, 620 (citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds, Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6, I 57-58, 248 P.3d 938-39. Notably, this Court has not imposed a list of factors or specific warnings that must be checked off by the trial court in this context. Mathis, 2012 OK CR 1, I 15, 271 P.3d at 74 (citations omitted). However, we will evaluate whether the defendant was adequately warned about the dangers of self-representation based upon all the circumstances of the case at issue, considering whether the defendant was made aware that this choice could quite likely work to his ultimate detriment. Id. (citations omitted). Ultimately, we have held that the trial court must make a defendant aware of the problems of self-representation, and must establish on the record that the defendant understands that his actions in proceeding without counsel may be to his ultimate detriment. Edwards U. State, 1991 OK CR 71, I 10, 815 P.2d 670, 673 (citations omitted). The record in this case contains no appropriate colloquy between Appellant and the trial court sufficient to demonstrate a knowing waiver of counsel.

Decision

Therefore, Appellant’s stipulation to the State’s Application to Vacate Order Suspending Execution of Sentence is VACATED and the order of the District Court of Carter County revoking Appellant’s suspended judgment and sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 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 delivery and filing of this decision.

107 1ST AVE. SW KEELEY L. MILLER ARDMORE, OK 73401 ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR STATE 313 NE 21st STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

RC 6

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 22 O.S.Supp.2018, § 991b(F).
2. Painter v. State, 1988 OK CR 224, q10, 762 P.2d 990, 992.
3. Mathis U. State, 2012 OK CR 1, I 18, 271 P.3d 67, 75.
4. Parker v. State, 1976 OK CR 293, I 9, 556 P.2d 1298, 1301.
5. State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, I 5, 298 P.3d 1192, 1194.
6. Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, I 12, 909 P.2d 783, 788.
7. Lay U. State, 2008 OK CR 7, I 10, 179 P.3d 615, 620.
8. Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6, I 57-58, 248 P.3d 938-39.
9. Mathis, 2012 OK CR 1, I 15, 271 P.3d at 74.
10. Edwards U. State, 1991 OK CR 71, I 10, 815 P.2d 670, 673.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 (2011) - Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b(F) (Supp. 2018) - Right to Counsel in Revocation Hearings

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:

• Painter v. State, 1988 OK CR 224, I 10, 762 P.2d 990, 992
• Mathis v. State, 2012 OK CR 1, I 18, 271 P.3d 67, 75
• Parker v. State, 1976 OK CR 293, I 9, 556 P.2d 1298, 1301
• State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, I 5, 298 P.3d 1192, 1194
• Braun v. State, 1995 OK CR 42, I 12, 909 P.2d 783, 788
• Lay v. State, 2008 OK CR 7, I 10, 179 P.3d 615, 620
• Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6, I 57-58, 248 P.3d 938-39
• Edwards v. State, 1991 OK CR 71, I 10, 815 P.2d 670, 673