Hearing on Restitution Archives

C-2018-1184

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2019
Post category:C

In the case of Hipolito John Herrera v. The State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed Herrera's appeal concerning his guilty plea to Conjoint Robbery. The key issues raised by Herrera were: 1. **Plea Validity**: Herrera argued that his guilty plea was not entered freely, knowingly, and intelligently, citing misadvice from his legal counsel regarding his potential maximum sentence. The State conceded this point, acknowledging that the plea was not made with the requisite understanding. The court found that this constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Herrera's motion to withdraw his plea. 2. **Restitution Order**: Herrera's second and third propositions focused on the restitution order, arguing that the trial court did not have sufficient proof of actual losses incurred by the victim and a bail bondsman, and that the bail bondsman should not be considered a victim under Oklahoma restitution laws. However, these propositions became moot due to the decision on the plea validity. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Herrera's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring a defendant's plea is made with full understanding and without coercion or misinformation. The judicial decision highlighted in the summary opinion grants Herrera relief, enabling him to withdraw his plea and possibly reassess the legal consequences and restitution implications of his case.

F-2000-618

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 31, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-618, Keith Avey appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence, After Former Conviction of Driving Under the Influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Avey's judgment and sentence of eight years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. However, the court requested a remand for a hearing on restitution. One judge dissented. Avey was found guilty by a jury which heard evidence that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. This included observations of his strong smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unstable walking after a collision. The jury decided to give him a punishment of eight years in prison and a fine, along with restitution payment. During the appeal, Avey argued that the trial court made mistakes. He believed the court should have informed the jury about a lesser charge called Driving While Impaired. However, the appellate court ruled that the evidence against him was strong enough that not giving this instruction was acceptable. Avey also contended that the trial court should have examined the specific losses experienced by the victims before setting the restitution amount. The appellate court agreed that the trial court failed to provide this hearing, stating that the law requires the court to establish the actual losses suffered by the victims. This is why they sent the case back for a restitution hearing. Avey argued that he did not get a fair defense because his attorney didn’t challenge the order of restitution effectively. However, the court disagreed, saying that the attorney did raise objections about the amount of loss and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance. Furthermore, Avey claimed that the evidence presented was not enough to prove he was guilty. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Finally, Avey said that the eight-year sentence was too harsh. The appellate court stated that the sentence was appropriate and in line with the law. In summary, while the appellate court upheld Avey's imprisonment and fine, it required a new examination of the restitution amount due to the trial court's failure to provide proper hearings.