Minimum Requirements Archives

RE-2019-19

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 30, 2020
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the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.

F-2018-1187

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 31, 2019
Post category:F

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, the case reviewed is that of Pearlena Hall, who appealed the decision of the district court following her termination from the mental-health court program. On May 4, 2017, Hall entered guilty pleas in two cases related to larceny, obstructing an officer, and possession of drug paraphernalia. After entering the mental-health court program, she faced a motion to terminate her participation due to allegations of committing a new crime and various rule violations. The court reviewed the appeal for any abuse of discretion regarding the termination. The decision to terminate a defendant from a mental-health court must uphold minimum due process standards, which includes proper notice of violations, an opportunity to be heard, and the ability to confront witnesses. Hall argued that her due process rights were violated because the State did not file a new application for removal and thus did not provide adequate notice about the allegations against her. However, the court found that Hall was aware of the allegations, which she confessed to during the proceedings. The judge provided opportunities for her to comply with program requirements, and a delay in sentencing that favored Hall did not equate to a due process violation. The court highlighted that she could not complain about delays she acquiesced to during the processes. Ultimately, the court affirmed Hall's termination from the mental-health court, ruling that her procedural rights had been sufficiently met. Thus, her appeal was denied, and the termination order was upheld. The court's opinion was delivered by Judge Rowland, with Judges Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, and Hudson concurring with the decision. The mandate was ordered as per Oklahoma Court rules, and the relevant parties were identified for representation. For further reference, you can view the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1187_1734785215.pdf).