In OCCA case No. C-2021-218, the petitioner appealed her conviction for outraging public decency and violation of a protective order. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court agreed that her due process rights were violated when the district court denied her motions to withdraw her pleas while she was absent from the hearing. No one dissented.
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA **Case No. C-2018-1174** **OCT 31, 2019** **STEVEN JOSEPH BEATY, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Steven Joseph Beaty entered guilty pleas to the following charges in the District Court of Grady County, Case No. CF-2018-115: **Count I** - Felony Domestic Assault and Battery, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644 (C)); **Count II** - Misdemeanor Violation of Protective Order (22 O.S.Supp.2012, § 60.6); **Count III** - Obstructing An Officer (21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 540). The Honorable Kory Kirkland accepted the pleas on October 16, 2018. The sentences imposed included the following: **Count I** - ten (10) years imprisonment with the last seven (7) years suspended and a $500.00 fine; **Count II** - one year imprisonment and a $200.00 fine; **Count III** - one year imprisonment and a $100.00 fine, with all sentences served concurrently and additional requirements such as costs, victim compensation assessments, and referral to the Batterer's Intervention Program. On October 25, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. After a hearing on November 13, 2018, Judge Kirkland denied the motion. Petitioner now appeals this denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. The lack of a factual basis for the plea renders it involuntary due to not being served with the Protective Order. 2. The trial judge failed to consider Petitioner’s ability to pay the victim compensation fee. 3. Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel during both the plea hearing and at the plea withdrawal hearing. **Analysis:** After thorough review of the petitions, records, and transcripts, the court finds no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. A plea is evaluated based on whether it was voluntary and intelligent, requiring the Petitioner to show it was entered inadvertently or without consideration. In his first two propositions, Petitioner alleges he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea due to inadequate factual basis and failure to inquire about ability to pay the compensation fee. However, these claims were not raised in the motion to withdraw nor in the certiorari petition, waiving their consideration on appeal. In Proposition III, relating to ineffective assistance of counsel at the withdrawal hearing, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that such deficiencies would have altered the outcome. The court affirms that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and not coerced. The claim about the court’s failure to record considerations for the victim compensation assessment is acknowledged; thus, that part of the assessment is vacated, and the case is remanded for a hearing to address this requirement properly. **Conclusion:** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The Judgment of the District Court is **AFFIRMED**. The current victim compensation assessments are **VACATED**, and the case is **REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT** to consider all necessary factors for assessment under 22 O.S.2011, § 142.18(A). **OPINION BY**: LUMPKIN, J. **CONCUR**: LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. **COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE AT THE PLEA HEARING**: Bill Smith, P.O. Box 926, Norman, OK 73070 **COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER ON APPEAL**: Danny Joseph, Oklahoma City, OK **COUNSEL FOR THE STATE**: Jason M. Hicks, District Attorney, Kara Bacon, Assistant District Attorney, Chickasha, OK. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1174_1734227971.pdf)
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-724, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, burglary, domestic abuse, and violation of a protective order. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for most counts but dismissed one count due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2016-877, Charles David Miller appealed his conviction for multiple charges including stalking and possession of a firearm during a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Miller’s petition in part. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences for some counts but reversed the sentence for Count 1 and dismissed Count 4 due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented. The case began when Miller, facing serious charges, entered a guilty plea in December 2014, agreeing to certain terms. He was originally given deferred sentences, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the terms of his probation. However, after a hearing in 2015, the court ruled to impose a harsher sentence because Miller did not comply with the terms, leading to his appeal. Throughout the appeal, Miller argued that his guilty plea should be withdrawn for several reasons. He claimed there was no factual reason for his plea, that he was not made aware of his rights, and expressed concerns about double punishment as well as the effectiveness of his lawyer. The court reviewed the details and concluded that Miller had not shown enough grounds for his claims because some issues were not raised earlier in court, making them not eligible for review. The court particularly focused on whether Miller's plea was voluntary and if he was properly informed. They found that while Miller's plea might have been motivated by a desire to get his car back, he did understand the consequences of his actions. The court upheld the judgment for some counts, but it noted that the sentence for Count 1 was illegal because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. As a result, they ordered a new sentencing for that count and dismissed Count 4 entirely because of double punishment. In summary, the main points were that Miller wanted to reverse his guilty plea but the court found many of his arguments unsubstantiated. They decided to change his sentence on one charge while dismissing another, affirming the result on several others.
In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-765, Polk appealed his conviction for multiple counts including Child Sexual Abuse, First Degree Rape by Instrumentation, Kidnapping, and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant his appeal in part by reversing and dismissing the conviction for Lewd Molestation but affirmed the other convictions. One judge dissented.