Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 980 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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided that revoking his suspended sentence without him being present was a violation of his right to due process, and therefore, the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-2018-1087

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2019
Post category:F

This document is a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, addressing the appeal of Spencer Joe Cuccaro regarding his termination from the Kay County Drug Court and subsequent sentencing. ### Key Points: 1. **Case Background**: - Appellant Spencer Joe Cuccaro was placed in the Kay County Drug Court program on June 22, 2017, following a plea agreement that stipulated the conditions of his sentencing based on his performance in the program. - Cuccaro was involved in multiple cases (CF-2016-561, CF-2011-74, CF-2008-353) linked to drug offenses and was under specific probationary requirements. 2. **Allegations Against Cuccaro**: - The State filed a petition to remove Cuccaro from Drug Court, citing new criminal charges (including trafficking in illegal drugs), non-compliance with counseling requirements, and outstanding fees. - Evidence presented included testimonies from law enforcement regarding drug possession during a traffic stop and at the jail. 3. **Termination Hearing**: - At the termination hearing, evidence presented indicated that Cuccaro had violated the terms of his drug court agreement by committing new offenses and failing to meet his counseling and payment obligations. - The trial judge, David R. Bandy, found sufficient evidence to terminate Cuccaro from the Drug Court program. 4. **Appeal Propositions**: - **Proposition I**: Cuccaro claimed his no contest pleas were coerced. - **Proposition II**: He alleged the trial court failed to follow mandatory Drug Court procedures. - **Proposition III**: He contended the trial judge abused discretion in terminating him. - **Proposition IV**: He argued that the sentencing was excessive. 5. **Court's Analysis**: - The court found that Proposition I was not a suitable subject for this appeal and should be addressed in a separate certiorari appeal regarding the plea. - Proposition II also fell outside the scope of the termination appeal, which is to assess the validity of the termination order. - For Proposition III, the court upheld that the decision to terminate Cuccaro was within the judge’s discretion, consistent with the evidence of non-compliance and new criminal activity. - Proposition IV regarding sentencing was similarly ruled to be outside the appeal context, advising Cuccaro to raise such claims in the separate certiorari appeal. 6. **Decision**: - The court affirmed the termination order, emphasizing the trial judge's proper authority and the sufficiency of the evidence for termination from Drug Court. ### Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the District Court's order to terminate Spencer Joe Cuccaro from Drug Court and advised him to pursue any excessive sentence claims separately. The decision reflects adherence to legal standards concerning plea agreements, drug court compliance, and the discretion exercised by trial judges in such matters. For more details, you can access the full opinion [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-1087_1734789881.pdf).

RE-2010-762

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 6, 2012
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2010-762, Mason appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Mason's suspended sentence but ordered a correction regarding the time served. One judge dissented. Mason had previously entered a guilty plea for a drug-related charge and received a suspended sentence, which meant he didn’t have to go to prison immediately but had to follow certain rules. Over time, he violated those rules several times. The state government, which is responsible for enforcing the law, filed multiple applications to revoke his suspended sentence due to his failures to comply with the terms of probation. He confessed to some of the allegations against him, such as not completing community service and not paying fees. After multiple chances and extensions given by the court to fix his issues, Mason still did not follow the rules. For example, he used drugs again and didn’t seek help as he was supposed to. At a hearing, the court found that Mason did not meet the terms of his probation and decided to revoke his suspended sentence completely. Mason argued that the court shouldn’t have been able to take away the whole suspended sentence because he had already served some time. The court agreed that Mason needed to be credited for time served but found it was appropriate to revoke the rest of the suspended sentence given that he didn’t comply when given chances. The final decision was to affirm the judgment that Mason had violated probation, but with instructions to the lower court to ensure they correctly noted how much time was left on his sentence. In conclusion, while Mason's appeal did not succeed in changing the outcome of the revocation, he was recognized for the days he had already spent in custody.