Bumpus v. State Archives

RE-2004-445

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 12, 2005
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-445, Dewayne Eugene Ring appealed his conviction for attempted burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Ring should have a chance to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not eligible for a suspended sentence due to his prior convictions. The court found that his previous felony convictions meant that part of his sentence that was suspended was void. Therefore, they ordered that the lower court should give him a chance to withdraw his plea. If he chose not to withdraw it, the court was to make him serve the full sentence. One judge dissented in this opinion.

RE-2001-947

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 10, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-947, the appellant appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the matter to the District Court of Noble County for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The story begins when the appellant entered a guilty plea for indecent exposure in 1991 and was given a suspended sentence. This means he wouldn't serve time unless he broke the rules of his probation. However, in 1999, the State said he had committed another crime while on probation and wanted to take away his suspended sentence. During the revocation hearing, it was discovered that when the appellant was sentenced, he should not have been given a suspended sentence at all because of his prior convictions. According to Oklahoma law, if someone has three or more felony convictions, they aren't allowed to receive a suspended sentence. The court noted that both the appellant and the State were aware of his criminal history, and no evidence was presented to show that he was eligible for a suspended sentence. In fact, the plea agreement that he entered into was not legal under the law. Because of these issues, the court decided that the appellant's original judgment and sentence should be vacated, meaning it was canceled. This allows the appellant a chance to withdraw his guilty plea, which he can do if he wants to go to trial for the indecent exposure charge again. If he chooses not to withdraw his plea, he will then be sentenced again, but this time, it will be done right and in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the court took this action to ensure that everything was done fairly and legally, giving the appellant a proper opportunity to have his case heard correctly in the District Court. The ruling was important in maintaining the rules around sentencing and ensuring that people with multiple convictions are treated based on the law.

RE-2000-1566

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 7, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2000-1566, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession and distribution of controlled drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the order that suspended the appellant's sentences and remanded the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was found guilty of possessing cocaine, methamphetamine, and distributing drugs to a minor. These offenses happened on January 30, 1994, and the appellant entered guilty pleas on March 27, 1995. As part of a plea agreement, the state recommended a fifteen-year sentence for each charge, which was to be served concurrently. The court accepted the pleas and suspended the sentences under probation conditions. In 1998, the state sought to revoke the suspended sentences because the appellant was allegedly found in possession of methamphetamine. During the revocation hearing, the judge ordered the sentences to be revoked in full based on the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the case should be sent back to the lower court, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea, referencing a previous case for support. The court noted that the appellant had not previously disclosed several felony convictions before accepting his guilty plea, which raised questions about the validity of the initial suspended sentence. The court ruled that the suspensions were invalid due to legislative restrictions against suspending sentences for individuals with previous felony convictions. As a result, the court instructed the lower court to hold further proceedings consistent with the decision referenced in the previous case. Additionally, it was ordered that the appellant be given a chance to withdraw his guilty plea. If he chose to do so, the prior convictions would be vacated, allowing the state to prosecute him again if necessary. If he decided to keep the guilty plea, the sentences would be executed immediately, with credit given for the time already served. Ultimately, the court's decision led to the dismissal of remaining errors regarding the revocation orders, as they were deemed moot now that the suspension orders were vacated.