This document is a summary opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of David Duane Albright, a petitioner who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a place for keeping/selling controlled substances. ### Key Points: 1. **Background**:
- Albright was originally charged in Delaware County with multiple drug-related offenses in 2010.
- He entered a guilty plea in December 2010 and was accepted into the Delaware County Drug Court Program.
- After being terminated from the program for non-compliance, he was sentenced in September 2013 to life imprisonment on two counts and 20 years on another, with fines imposed. 2. **Procedural Posture**:
- Albright filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas shortly after sentencing, which was denied.
- He initially failed to appeal but was granted an appeal out of time in 2018. 3. **Claims on Appeal**:
Albright raised several propositions of error:
- **Proposition I**: He argued his plea lacked an adequate factual basis.
- **Proposition II**: Claimed his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily.
- **Proposition III**: Contended the $50,000 fine was unauthorized by statute.
- **Proposition IV**: Asserted he should have received credit for jail time, violating his due process.
- **Proposition V**: Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. **Court's Analysis**:
- **Proposition I and II**: The court found Albright waived appellate review by not raising these claims in his motion to withdraw his plea.
- **Proposition III and IV**: These claims were also deemed waived for similar reasons, not raised in the motion to withdraw.
- **Proposition V**: While the court reviewed the ineffective assistance of withdrawal counsel, they found no evidence of deficiency or that it prejudiced Albright's case. 5. **Decision**:
- The court affirmed the lower court's denial of Albright's Motion to Withdraw Plea, concluding that he did not demonstrate a valid basis for the claims made. 6. **Concurring Opinion**:
- Judge Rowland specially concurred, expressing concern regarding the adequacy of the factual basis for the plea related to maintaining a place for keeping/selling a controlled dangerous substance. While recognizing the issues, he noted that because the facts weren’t adequately challenged during the proceedings, the claims were not actionable in this appeal. ### Conclusion:
The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision stands, allowing the guilty pleas to remain in effect due to procedural waivers and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims raised on appeal. The opinion highlights the importance of raising issues timely and thoroughly in the proper forums to preserve them for review.
