Incarceration Costs Archives

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)

F-2017-1247

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 16, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1247, Michael Wesley Watters appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury and Misdemeanor Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order to accelerate Watters' deferred judgment and sentencing. There was one dissenting opinion. Watters had entered a plea of no contest for his charges and was given a deferred judgment. This meant that if he followed the rules for a certain period, he would not have to serve time. However, the state claimed that he violated the terms of his deferred sentence, which led to this appeal. The court examined various issues presented by Watters regarding his case, including whether there was enough evidence for his probation violation, if the judge used proper evidence to make decisions, and if he received fair representation from his lawyer. The court found that the state's evidence, which included testimony from Watters' former spouse, was sufficient to show that he had violated a protective order. It also decided that while some issues regarding how jail costs were calculated were raised, these issues were moot because earlier court rulings had already addressed them. Watters argued that he did not get a fair hearing because of the prosecutor's behavior and that his lawyer did not do a good job representing him. However, the court felt that any mistakes made by his lawyer did not affect the outcome of the case significantly. Watters claimed his sentence was too harsh, but the court explained that questions about the length of a sentence in this situation need to be addressed in a different kind of appeal, not this one. Ultimately, the court found no significant errors in the proceedings and affirmed the decision to accelerate Watters' sentencing, meaning he was required to serve his time in prison.

C-2018-688

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property, endeavoring to distribute marijuana, and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition for certiorari but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. On January 6, 2015, the petitioner entered guilty pleas for the above crimes and was put in a program meant to help young adults. After showing good behavior, the court decided in August 2015 to delay his sentencing for ten years, allowing him to be on probation with some financial responsibilities. However, in March 2018, the state said the petitioner had broken his probation by committing new crimes, so they asked to speed up the sentencing. In May 2018, the court accepted the petitioner's guilty pleas for the new crimes, which included possession of a controlled substance and public intoxication, and imposed additional sentences. Altogether, he was sentenced to twelve years in prison. The petitioner then tried to take back his guilty pleas, but the court denied this request. He appealed this decision, bringing up several arguments. He felt the financial penalties were unfair and too high, that he did not receive good legal help, and that the total twelve-year sentence was excessive given his previous achievements in the diversion program. The court looked at these claims carefully but decided that while some of the fines were too high, particularly calling for a correction of the $1,000 fee in his case involving concealing stolen property, they would not change the length of the total prison time. They said the sentences were within the law and not shockingly excessive, affirming the lower court's decisions in many respects. The court concluded that they would not change the ruling on the guilty pleas but would send the case back for hearings on the issues related to the fines and costs.

C-2018-687

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-687, the petitioner appealed his conviction for concealing stolen property and drug-related crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to deny the petition but remanded for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In OCCA case No. C-2018-688, the petitioner also raised issues about his sentences and fines. He argued that the fines were too high, and he expressed concerns about the costs of his incarceration. The court found some merit in his claims, particularly regarding the fines exceeding legal limits and the lack of consideration for his mental health concerning incarceration costs. However, the court did not find that the total sentences were excessively long. The petitioner had previously pleaded guilty to charges and was placed in a program for young adults but later faced new misdemeanor charges, leading to the state seeking to accelerate his sentencing. Ultimately, while the court upheld the denial of his request to withdraw his pleas, it recognized problems regarding the assessment of fines and costs, which warranted a remand for further investigation. Thus, the case will go back to the lower court for resolution of these issues.

C-2017-684

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-684, Bryan Lee Guy appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle, driving while his license was under suspension, and affixing an unauthorized license plate. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal and remand the case to the District Court for a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person exempt from paying the costs of incarceration. One judge dissented. Bryan Guy was charged with three offenses and entered a guilty plea for all of them. He received a sentence that included time in prison and jail, plus post-imprisonment supervision. After a few days, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what he was doing or that he wasn't well advised by his lawyer. The court held a hearing but decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. In his appeal, Bryan raised three main issues. He argued that he should be allowed to take back his guilty plea because it wasn't made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary way. He also complained about being charged for incarceration costs and claimed his lawyer didn't provide effective help. The court looked closely at Bryan’s arguments. It found that he didn’t prove that he didn’t understand his plea, concluding that the trial court acted fairly. Bryan's second point about the costs also didn't stand because he didn't raise it during the first hearing, which meant he could not bring it up later in his appeal. His claim about not getting good help from his lawyer was examined using a specific test. The court noted that Bryan claimed to have been misinformed about the minimum punishment for one of the offenses, but this did not affect the outcome since the misunderstanding was in his favor. Ultimately, the court found that there was a chance Bryan might be mentally ill, which means he might not have to pay for incarceration costs. This was a significant factor, leading to the decision to send the case back to the lower court for more examination of his mental health status. The final decision of the court was to deny the appeal for the first two issues but recognized the need to assess Bryan's mental health concerning the costs he was ordered to pay for incarceration. The case was remanded for that specific determination.

C-2015-514

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 27, 2016
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-514, Hanks appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse and Malicious Injury to Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but remanded the case to determine if Hanks was mentally ill, which would affect the costs he was assessed. One judge dissented. Hanks had pleaded guilty to two counts of Domestic Abuse and one count of Malicious Injury to Property in a state court. The judge sentenced him to three months in jail for one charge and one year suspended for the other two. He was also required to pay fines and fees. After entering his plea, Hanks tried to withdraw it, claiming he did not understand what he was doing and that he had poor legal help. The court looked at whether Hanks had made his plea knowingly and voluntarily. They found that he understood what he was doing and that his mental issues did not prevent him from understanding his plea. The court also considered Hanks' claim that his lawyer did not help him properly during the process and found no evidence to support this. One important point in the decision focused on the costs Hanks had to pay related to his time in jail. The court noted that because he had a mental illness diagnosis, he might not have to pay these costs according to state law, which says that mentally ill people should be exempt from such fees. Because of this, the court sent the case back for further evaluation of Hanks' mental health status to see if he qualified for the exemption. Overall, the court upheld the original decision while allowing for further examination of Hanks' mental health to understand his financial obligations better.

C-2010-337

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2010
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-337, Derrick Ewayne Bickham appealed his conviction for felonious pointing of a firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One member dissented. Bickham entered no contest pleas for several charges in a District Court, resulting in a 20-year sentence for robbery and other related offenses. He argued that his pleas were made under coercion and did not reflect a clear understanding of the situation due to his mental health issues. However, the court found that Bickham entered his pleas knowingly and voluntarily, dismissing his claims of coercion. Additionally, Bickham contested that he should not have to pay for the costs related to his incarceration. The court ruled that he could challenge the cost calculation in a different court proceeding. The decision denied Bickham's petition but sent the case back to the District Court to assess if he was considered mentally ill, which could exempt him from incarceration costs.

F-2001-934

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 25, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-934, Guy Franklin Randell appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but remand the matter for further proceedings regarding certain fees. One judge dissented. Randell was found guilty in a bench trial, meaning a judge, not a jury, decided his case. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years of that suspended, which means he won’t have to serve those five years if he meets certain conditions. He also had to pay a fine and other costs related to his court case. Randell raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that the testimony of the victim was not reliable and needed more support to be believed. The court looked at the evidence and decided that while there were some inconsistencies in the victim's statements, they were still enough to uphold the conviction. He also challenged the costs that were added to his sentence, particularly the fees for his time in jail. The court concluded that even though the prosecution had requested these fees, there was not enough evidence to support how they were calculated. Therefore, the court decided to remove those specific fees and send the case back for a hearing to figure out the correct costs. In summary, the court upheld Randell’s conviction but disagreed with some financial aspects of his sentencing, which will be reassessed in the lower court.

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.

RE-2001-180

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 9, 2002
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-180, Jason Lee Hunt appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Hunt's suspended sentence. One member of the court dissented. Jason Lee Hunt had originally been convicted for unlawfully possessing marijuana and had received a suspended sentence, which means he did not have to serve time in jail as long as he followed certain rules. However, he got in trouble again when he did not report to his probation officer, did not tell the officer when he moved, and missed payments he was supposed to make as part of his probation. The court held a hearing to discuss these issues. The judge determined that Hunt had clearly violated the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his entire suspended sentence. Hunt appealed this decision, arguing that the judge made some mistakes, like not properly checking if he could afford to make the payments and not giving him a fair chance to defend himself. After reviewing the case, the court found that there was enough proof that Hunt had not followed the rules of his probation. They agreed with the judge's decision to revoke his sentence but disagreed with the part where he was asked to pay for jail expenses. The court decided to remove those payment orders.

RE-2001-318

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2001
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2001-318, the appellant appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but found that he should be allowed to earn good-time credits. One judge dissented regarding the way the case was handled concerning incarceration costs. The case started when the appellant entered a plea and had his sentence deferred for three years. Later, his sentence was accelerated, and he was sentenced to seven years with two years suspended. After a while, the State requested to revoke his sentence, which led to a court hearing. The judge revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the appellant to serve 120 days in jail without earning good-time credits and to pay for his incarceration. During the appeal, the appellant argued two main points. He claimed that the court did not have the authority to deny him the ability to earn good-time credits and that it violated his rights by not reviewing the actual costs of his incarceration. The appellate court agreed that the lower court had exceeded its authority by not allowing the appellant to earn credits and ruled that the case needed further review regarding the incarceration costs. In summary, the appellate court confirmed the revocation of the appellant's suspended sentence but changed the decision about good-time credits and required a new review of incarceration costs to ensure fairness.