Attorney Fees Archives - OCCA Opinions

RE-2018-435

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 20, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSE FIGUEROA MESTA,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. **No. RE-2018-435** **FILED** IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 20 2019 JOHN D. HADDEN CLERK **SUMMARY OPINION** LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1. On March 4, 2016, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Within 1,000 Feet of a Park, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402(C)(1). The Honorable Jon Parsley, District Judge, convicted Appellant and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, with all but the first eighty days suspended. On February 27, 2018, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence alleging Appellant failed to submit probation reports; failed to report his arrest for public intoxication; moved back into Oklahoma without reporting it to the district court; and committed new crimes of Possession of a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, Within 2000 Feet of a School or Park, With Intent to Distribute (Count 1), and Possession of CDS Without a Tax Stamp Affixed (Count 2) as alleged in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2018-58. Following a hearing, Judge Parsley revoked Appellant's remaining suspended sentence in full. **Proposition I:** Appellant alleges the trial court erred in assessing him attorney fees of $500, which he claims exceeds the amount allowed by statute. **Proposition II:** Appellant argues he cannot be assessed the costs of his incarceration because he is mentally ill. These claims are outside the scope of a revocation appeal. The consequence of judicial revocation is to execute a penalty previously imposed in the judgment and sentence. The scope of review in a revocation appeal is limited to the validity of the revocation order executing the previously imposed sentence. As noted on numerous occasions, arguments regarding attorney fees and incarceration costs are administrative and not properly presented as part of the appeal of an order revoking a suspended sentence. Thus, we deny Propositions I and II. **Proposition III:** Appellant objects to the inclusion of post-imprisonment supervision in the revocation order. The State concedes this point, arguing the issue is moot because Judge Parsley entered an amended revocation order on January 17, 2019, deleting post-imprisonment supervision from the revocation order. We agree that this proposition is moot. The decision to revoke a suspended sentence in whole or part is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof. Appellant has not established that Judge Parsley abused his discretion. **DECISION** The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Texas County District Court Case No. CF-2015-1 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** AT REVOCATION **VONDA WILKINS** P.O. BOX 1486 GUYMON, OK 73492 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ON APPEAL **LISBETH McCARTY** P.O. BOX 926 NORMAN, OK 73070 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT **TAOS SMITH** ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 319 N. MAIN GUYMON, OK 73942 COUNSEL FOR STATE **MIKE HUNTER** OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL KEELEY MILLER ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st ST. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J:** Concur **ROWLAND, J:** Concur [**Click Here To Download PDF**](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-435_1734691413.pdf)

RE-2001-887

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 30, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. F-2001-687, the appellant appealed her conviction for Uttering Two or More Bogus Checks Exceeding $50.00. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge dissented. The case began in 1995 when the appellant entered a plea of Nolo Contendere, which means she did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment for the crime. She was found guilty of writing bad checks to a grocery store, and her sentence was put on hold for five years, during which she had to pay restitution and other costs. However, she violated her probation by not making payments or reporting to her probation officer, leading to the state requesting her sentence be enforced in 1999. On May 23, 2001, the court found the appellant had violated her probation and sentenced her to one year in jail. She was also ordered to pay restitution for her bad checks, but the total amount was very high compared to the checks she admitted writing. The appellant argued that she should not have to pay such a large amount of restitution because she was not convicted of all the other related checks that contributed to that total. There were many checks between different years, and she felt the court had made an error by imposing restitution for checks she never had to answer for in court. Additionally, the appellant felt that the court had not looked into whether she could afford to pay the restitution without hardship to herself or her family. The court had different amounts recorded for restitution over time, which contributed to her confusion regarding what she owed. Also, when she was jailed, the appellant thought the fees for her time in jail were unfair and more than the actual cost of her incarceration. She claimed that the costs were not justified by evidence and that no one checked if paying these fees would create a financial burden for her. The court recognized the problems she raised about her case, particularly regarding her obligation to pay the reported costs and restitution without proof they were correct or fair. They decided that the lower court needed to review everything again: why the appellant was ordered certain restitution, if she could afford to pay it, and what the correct amounts should be. In summary, the court referred the case back to the lower court to have them investigate these issues further. The goal was to ensure that the appellant's rights were protected and that the law was being correctly applied.

F-2005-392

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 21, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-638, Ray Lamont Hubbard appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the assessment of incarceration costs against him needed further review because the process used to determine those costs was not followed properly. The opinion noted that Hubbard's ability to pay was considered, but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to correctly calculate the incarceration costs. In OCCA case No. F-2000-194, Troy Don Cape also appealed the assessment of incarceration costs after pleading guilty to Driving While Intoxicated. The court similarly decided to vacate the amount of costs assessed against him because the required procedure for determining the costs was not adequately followed. Both cases were sent back for hearings to determine appropriate incarceration costs. One judge dissented on the decision to vacate and remand, believing that the assessments were already supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial courts had acted within their discretion.