85% Requirement Archives

C-2018-225

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Case No. C-2018-225** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Petitioner:** STEVEN LEON GRIMMETT **Respondent:** THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **Opinion by: LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Steven Leon Grimmett (Petitioner) was charged with multiple felony counts and entered a blind plea of no contest. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming coercion and misunderstandings regarding his sentence. His motion was denied, and he appealed the decision, raising several propositions of error. 1. **Coercion and Voluntariness of Plea**: Petitioner claimed his plea was coerced and involuntary. The court evaluated whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, emphasizing the importance of confirming that the plea was not the result of force or threats. The court concluded that evidence demonstrated the plea was voluntary. 2. **Advice on Sentencing Requirements**: The Petitioner contended he was not adequately informed about the 85% rule applicable to his sentence or the post-imprisonment supervision requirement. However, since these claims were not raised in his Motion to Withdraw Plea, the appellate court found he waived the right to contest these issues. 3. **Clerical Error Argument**: Petitioner argued there was a clerical error in the judgment regarding the requirement of post-imprisonment supervision. The court did not find this to be an obvious error but remanded the matter to the district court to address the claim. 4. **Effective Assistance of Counsel**: The court assessed his claims of ineffective assistance of both plea and withdrawal counsel using the Strickland test, which evaluates counsel's performance and whether any deficiencies prejudiced the defense. The court determined that Petitioner was sufficiently informed about his plea and that withdrawal counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance. **DECISION**: The court affirmed the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Plea and remanded for the district court to address the clerical error regarding post-imprisonment supervision. **Counsel Information:** - **Counsel for Petitioner at Trial and Appeal**: Shelley Levisay, Kimberly D. Heinze - **Counsel for the State**: Adam Panter, Mike Hunter, David Hammer, Joshua Fanelli **Opinion filed: May 9, 2019** **Mandate ordered upon filing**. For full opinion documents, refer to [the PDF link here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-225_1734103367.pdf).

F-2006-429

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 23, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-429, David Michael Graham appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the restitution order. One judge dissented. Graham was found guilty by a jury of three counts of Lewd Molestation. The jury recommended that he serve 20 years in prison for each count, with the last 10 years suspended under probation conditions. The judge also ordered him to pay $10,000 to each victim. In his appeal, Graham argued several things. First, he claimed that the way the prosecutors behaved during the trial made it unfair. He also said the judge didn’t properly inform the jury about how much of his sentence he would have to serve before getting paroled. Lastly, he felt the restitution amount was too high and lacked support from facts. After reviewing the case, the court agreed there was some misconduct but concluded it did not affect the conviction. The appeal also highlighted that the jury should have been told that he needed to serve 85% of his sentence, which led to changing the sentences to concurrent rather than consecutive. The judges found the order for restitution of $10,000 per count was not backed by evidence, so that part was dismissed. The overall opinion was that while the convictions were upheld, the sentences needed to be modified, and the restitution removed. One judge disagreed with modifying the sentences to run concurrently, believing the original sentencing was appropriate.