Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b(D) Archives

RE-2018-342

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSHUA ERIC ARMSTRONG,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2018-342 **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY - 9 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Joshua Eric Armstrong appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5, overseen by the Honorable David A. Work, Associate District Judge. ### Background On March 31, 2017, Appellant pled no contest to the charge of Possession/Concealing Stolen Property, leading to a five-year sentence, with all but the first two months suspended. On March 8, 2018, the State sought to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence on various grounds: failure to report, providing a false address, testing positive for methamphetamine, failing to pay court costs, prosecution reimbursement fees, restitution, and committing Grand Larceny (Case No. CF-2018-11). At the March 27, 2018, hearing, Judge Work revoked four years of Armstrong's suspended sentence. ### Appellant's Claims 1. **Proposition I**: Judge Work’s pronouncements were insufficient regarding the alleged probation violations. - **Finding**: No statutory requirement exists for detailed findings at revocation. The petition sufficiently informed Appellant of the grounds. 2. **Propositions II, III, and V**: The State did not prove certain alleged violations. - **Finding**: The State proved other violations; only one is necessary for revocation. 3. **Proposition IV**: Insufficient evidence to prove a false address. - **Finding**: Evidence indicated Appellant likely provided a false address. 4. **Proposition VI**: Improper revocation for unemployment not alleged in the petition. - **Finding**: Appellant failed to object during the hearing, waiving the issue for all but plain error review, which he did not establish. 5. **Proposition VII**: The trial court abused discretion in revoking part of the suspended sentence instead of requiring treatment. - **Finding**: Evidence supported the violations alleged in the petition, and there was no abuse of discretion. ### Decision The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5 is **AFFIRMED**. Mandate to be issued upon filing of this decision. **Appearances**: **Counsel for Defendant**: Ryan D. Recker **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for the State**: Kate Loughlin, Mike Hunter, Keeley L. Miller **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.**: CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.**: CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.**: CONCUR [Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-342_1734697264.pdf)

RE-2015-922

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2017
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-922, Palmer appealed his conviction for perjury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Palmer's suspended sentences. One judge dissented. Palmer had previously received a deferred sentence for a case in 2010. In 2015, he pleaded no contest to a perjury charge and got another suspended sentence that he was serving at the same time as the first one. Later, the State of Oklahoma filed to revoke his suspended sentences, claiming he had violated probation by not reporting, not paying court costs, and not completing a required program. They also added new charges of kidnapping and assault. During the revocation hearing, Palmer was removed from the courtroom because he was disruptive. He interrupted the judge repeatedly and was warned to stop, but he did not listen. The court found that because he was behaving disruptively, his absence from the hearing did not make the process unfair. Palmer also claimed that he wanted to represent himself but was forced to have a lawyer. The court determined he had not made any formal request to represent himself, so this claim was rejected. Additionally, Palmer argued that the court did not explain why his sentences were revoked. However, the court noted that there is no requirement to provide detailed reasons at a revocation hearing. Palmer's failure to follow even one condition of his probation was enough to justify the revocation of his sentences. Finally, Palmer thought the judge did not have the power to impose supervision following his imprisonment. However, the court found this issue was already resolved and was therefore moot. The court's overall ruling was to confirm that Palmer's suspended sentences were revoked, maintaining that proper procedures were followed during the revocation hearing.

RE-2015-735

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2015-735, Kathy Lynn Logan appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case. The court found that Logan was not given the proper opportunity to have a lawyer assist her during the revocation hearing, which is a requirement by law. The court noted that both Logan and the State agreed that the trial court did not properly check if Logan needed a lawyer, which meant she was denied her rights.

RE 2013-0672

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0672, Wilburn Shawn Crowell appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery-Domestic Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of Crowell's suspended sentence and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. The State agreed that the trial court did not have the authority to revoke the suspended sentence because it had already expired before the State filed for revocation. One judge dissented.

RE 2013-0511

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 18, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0511, Carrie Denise Stumpff appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided that the trial court failed to ensure that Stumpff knowingly waived her right to an attorney, which required them to reverse the decision and send the case back to the District Court for further actions. One member of the court dissented.

RE-2011-710

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 3, 2013
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2011-710, Jermaine Richard Newton appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order of his suspended sentences to time served. One judge dissented. Newton had originally pleaded guilty to the charges and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant he would not go to prison right away as long as he followed certain rules. One of the rules was that he could not break any laws. Later, he was accused of violating a protective order that had been put in place to keep him away from a specific person. The court examined whether there was enough evidence to show that Newton had broken the order. They found that there was enough proof that he had violated the order by being near the person it was intended to protect. The court also looked at whether the decision to revoke his suspended sentences was fair or too harsh. The judges noted that he was young and hadn't been in trouble before this violation. They concluded that sending him to prison for the full ten years was not necessary since he hadn't done anything very dangerous lately. In the end, the court decided he should not serve the full ten years but should instead be given a second chance, and they ordered that he should be returned to probation. The judges who agreed with this decision believed it was a fair outcome. However, one judge disagreed and felt that the original decision to revoke his suspended sentences should stand.

RE 2009-0510

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 14, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2009-0510, Edward Q. Jones appealed his conviction for revocation of his suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation. One judge dissented. Edward Jones had previously pled guilty to domestic abuse and was sentenced to a few years in jail, with most of that time suspended, meaning he wouldn’t serve it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he had problems following those rules, which led the State to ask the court to revoke his suspended sentence. There were two main hearings regarding this. In the first hearing, the judge found that Edward had broken the probation rules and took away three and a half years of his suspended time. Edward didn't appeal that decision. Later, the State filed another request to revoke his sentence, saying he had not followed the rules again. In the second hearing, the judge decided to take away all of his suspended time. Edward argued that he should have had a lawyer to help him at the hearing, which he really wanted. He felt that the short time between being told he could have a lawyer and the date of his hearing was not enough time for him to get one. He argued that he was unfairly treated without a lawyer and that he shouldn’t have to suffer because he missed a deadline due to a lack of money for the application fee to get a lawyer. The State countered by saying that since Edward didn't file for a court-appointed lawyer by the deadline set by the judge, he gave up his right to have one. They also argued that the right to have a lawyer at a revocation hearing is not a constitutional right but a statutory right. They said he didn't get the lawyer because he wasn't trying hard enough to get one and was just delaying things. The judges looked at earlier cases where people were found to have given up their right to a lawyer because they didn't act quickly enough to get one. They concluded that while there was a short delay for Edward, the reasons didn't clearly show he was deliberately trying to delay his hearing. They pointed out that Edward might not have known what he was doing in waiving his right to counsel, and the judge didn't look into whether he could have afforded a lawyer or not. After reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the court decided that Edward was not fairly represented when he attended his hearing without a lawyer. They noted that there was conflicting testimony from police officers about the events leading to his probation violations, which made it difficult for them to feel confident about the decision made at the hearing. Because of these issues, the court reversed the revocation of his suspended sentence. They sent it back to the district court to hold a new hearing where Edward could have a lawyer or show he knew he was giving up that right clearly. In doing so, they ordered that any confusion or problems found in the previous record should be clarified.

RE-2010-0510

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 7, 2010
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2009-0510, the appellant appealed his conviction for domestic abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentence and ordered a new hearing. One judge dissented. In this case, the appellant, who had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, was sentenced to five years, with certain conditions. His sentence was largely suspended, meaning he wouldn’t have to serve most of it if he followed the rules set by the court. However, he faced trouble when the state accused him of violating those rules. There were two applications made by the state to revoke his suspended sentence. The first happened in 2007, where a judge found he broke the terms of his probation and took away three and a half years of his suspended sentence. He did not appeal this decision. The second application was filed in 2009, which led to a hearing in May of that year. During this hearing, the judge determined that the appellant had again violated the rules, resulting in a decision to revoke his entire suspended sentence. The appellant claimed he did not have a lawyer during the revocation hearing. He argued that he was not given enough time to find one and that this hurt his case. The state responded that the appellant missed the deadline to apply for a court-appointed lawyer and therefore gave up his right to have legal help. They believed he was trying to delay the hearing. The law states that individuals at revocation hearings should have the right to have a lawyer, but the court can proceed if a person knowingly waives that right. In earlier similar cases, if judges found an individual was just trying to delay things, they ruled that the person voluntarily gave up their right to have a lawyer. In this case, the court found that the appellant's delay of only six days did not show he was deliberately trying to postpone the proceedings. They also noted the lack of a proper review regarding whether he was unable to afford a lawyer. As a result, the appeal had merit, and his claim for lack of counsel was upheld. Since the court noted conflicts in the testimony presented during the hearing, they decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentence. They ordered that a new hearing take place, ensuring that the appellant has the chance to be represented by a lawyer or that his waiver of that right is properly recorded. In summary, the court ruled that the process leading to the revocation had issues that warranted a new hearing, ensuring fairness and proper legal representation for the appellant.

RE 2006-0808

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 26, 2007
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2006-0808, Covey appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation order and send the case back for a new hearing with counsel present. One judge dissented. Covey had pled guilty to a crime and was given a suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn't serve time unless she broke the rules again. The State thought she had broken the rules and asked the court to take away her suspended sentence. At the hearing, Covey didn’t have a lawyer because she claimed she couldn’t pay for one. The judge said Covey had enough chances to get a lawyer but decided to go ahead without one. However, the court found that there was no clear proof that Covey was okay with not having a lawyer or that she understood the risks of representing herself. This is important because everyone has the right to have a lawyer help them during important hearings like this one. Because the court didn’t follow the proper rules for allowing Covey to go without a lawyer, they reversed the previous decision and said she should have another hearing with a lawyer or a clear agreement that she didn’t want one.