Failure to Appear

RE-2019-19

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2019-19, Daniel Lee Hart appealed his conviction for revocation of a suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the revocation was reversed. One judge dissented. Daniel Lee Hart originally pleaded guilty in 2009 to trying to manufacture a controlled substance. He was given a 20-year sentence, with 12 years of that being suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that part of the time as long as he followed certain rules. One of those rules was that he had to stay clean from drugs and check in regularly with his probation officer. In 2017, the state said that Hart had broken the rules. They said he had used drugs, didn’t show up for meetings with his probation officer in both Oklahoma and Kansas, didn’t register as a drug offender in Kansas, didn’t pay fees for his probation, and hadn’t completed his GED as he was supposed to. Hart later agreed to these claims but was able to be released for drug treatment for a few months before being sentenced. When the time came for his sentencing, Hart did not show up. Because he was absent, the court revoked the suspended part of his sentence completely. This meant he would have to serve the full 20 years instead of just the 8 years that he had left to serve. Hart appealed this decision, saying it was unfair for the court to make such a serious decision without him being there. The court looked at whether Hart's absence affected his right to defend himself. They said that everyone has the right to be present when decisions are made about their punishment. The court noted that Hart had not willingly chosen to skip the sentencing and that his absence could have greatly impacted the outcome. Because of these reasons, the court said Hart deserved a new hearing where he could be present to possibly explain why he wasn’t there and defend himself more fully. The final decision was to send the case back for another hearing. They wanted to make sure Hart had a fair chance to be present when the consequences of his actions were discussed again. In summary, because Hart was missing during a very important hearing, the court agreed that this was a mistake. They reversed the earlier decision and ordered a new hearing where he could be present.

Continue ReadingRE-2019-19

RE-2018-855

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DAKOTA MICHAEL SHANE BELL, Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.** **No. RE-2018-855** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEP 26 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** ### SUMMARY OPINION **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Dakota Michael Shane Bell appeals from the revocation of suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952. He pleaded guilty on April 5, 2017, to Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony (Count 2) in Case No. CF-2016-375 and Unlawful Use of a Vehicle in Case No. CF-2016-952. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment in each case, with all but the first sixty days suspended, and the sentences ordered to be served concurrently. On January 22, 2018, the State filed motions to revoke these suspended sentences, citing several violations by Appellant, including failure to pay required fees, absconding from supervision, and failing to complete mandated evaluations. After a hearing, Judge Kistler allowed Appellant until May 16, 2018, to comply with the conditions. When he did not appear, a warrant was issued. On July 24, 2018, following further proceedings, the trial court revoked Appellant's remaining suspended sentence. A violation report submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections indicated Appellant failed drug tests and several other requirements. On July 11, 2019, the State sought to supplement the record with an Amended Judgment and Sentence After Revocation, which was granted by the court. **Proposition I:** Appellant claims the revocation constituted an abuse of discretion based on his personal disadvantages. This argument is without merit, as a suspended sentence is a discretionary grace. The State must prove only one violation for revocation. Here, multiple violations were established, and Appellant received considerable leniency but failed to adhere to the conditions of his probation. Thus, no abuse of discretion is shown. **Proposition II:** Appellant asserts that the revocation order omitted credit for time served and mandated post-imprisonment supervision. This concern has been addressed by the filing of the amended revocation orders, rendering this proposition moot. ### DECISION The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Payne County District Court Case Nos. CF-2016-375 and CF-2016-952 is **AFFIRMED**. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is to be issued upon the filing of this decision. ### APPEARANCES - **For Appellant:** Virginia Banks, Ricki Walterscheid - **For Appellee:** Sierra Pfeiffer, Mike Hunter, Tessa Henry **OPINION BY:** HUDSON, J. **CONCUR:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; LUMPKIN, J.; ROWLAND, J.

Continue ReadingRE-2018-855

F-2017-1053

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1053, Greenwood appealed her conviction for drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her termination from the Drug Court program but required the lower court to remove a $500 fine that had been improperly assessed. One judge dissented. The case began when Greenwood, on October 13, 2015, agreed to participate in the Drug Court program after pleading no contest to a charge of possessing methamphetamine and guilty to having drug paraphernalia. If she successfully completed the program, her sentence would be deferred, meaning she wouldn't have to serve time unless she failed to meet the program requirements. However, on August 31, 2017, the State asked to terminate Greenwood from the Drug Court program. The judge held a hearing where they discussed her progress. The judge decided to end her participation because Greenwood had not been following the rules of the program. As a result, she was sentenced according to her plea agreement, but the judge also added a $500 fine. Greenwood did not agree with this fine and argued that it was illegal because it wasn't part of her original plea deal. She also claimed it wasn't fair to terminate her from the program since she felt that the court hadn't tried hard enough to help her comply with the program's requirements through smaller penalties before jumping to termination. The court looked at her arguments. They found that the fine was indeed not allowed because of the rules surrounding Drug Courts, which require that once admitted, a judge can't change the conditions of someone's plea agreement. Since Greenwood's agreement stated she wouldn't have a fine, the court ordered the lower court to remove that $500 fine. As for her termination from the Drug Court, the judges looked at the evidence that showed she had repeatedly not followed the rules. There was testimony showing she missed meetings, didn’t show up for drug testing, and was not engaging with the services offered to her. The court found that while Greenwood believed she wasn't given enough help, it was ultimately her responsibility to follow the rules. In the end, the court decided to keep the termination of Greenwood from the Drug Court but mandated that the fine be taken away. The ruling confirmed that the Drug Court successfully supported the justice system while also highlighting the importance of personal responsibility in such programs.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1053

RE-2015-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-767, the appellant appealed her conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentence but ordered the lower court to give her credit for time served in jail. The court also agreed that imposing nine months of supervision after her imprisonment was not appropriate. No judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE-2015-767

RE 2013-0850

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0850, Chief Allen Weston appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Choking. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but ordered the district court to modify the sentence to give Weston credit for the ninety days he had already served in jail during his probation period. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingRE 2013-0850

RE-2004-812

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-812, Duckett appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of A Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order of the District Court regarding the revocation of Duckett's suspended sentence and instructed the court to dismiss the case, leading to Duckett's immediate release. One judge dissented. The case began when Duckett entered a guilty plea for possessing crack cocaine and was given a three-year suspended sentence. However, in 2002, the state wanted to revoke this sentence due to alleged violations of probation. Duckett was arrested and confessed to violating the terms of his probation in early 2003, but his sentencing was postponed several times. When Duckett failed to appear for a hearing in June 2004, a warrant for his arrest was issued. After being taken into custody, he had his sentencing hearing on July 26, 2004, during which the court revoked his suspended sentence due to his absence at the earlier hearing. Duckett appealed this decision, arguing that the court could not revoke his probation after his three-year term had expired. The court agreed with Duckett's argument, stating that the District Court did not have the authority to sentence him after the probation had ended. Although the court had taken steps to help him, such as continuously supervising his probation, the law does not allow for a suspended sentence to be extended indefinitely. The ruling emphasized that once the suspended sentence expired, the District Court lost its power to revoke it. Therefore, the court reversed the earlier decision and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case, allowing Duckett to be released.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-812