RID Program Archives - OCCA Opinions

C-2018-977

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 29, 2019
Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **BRADLEY WAYNE CHERRY,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-977** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG 29 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Bradley Wayne Cherry entered guilty pleas in the District Court of Oklahoma County to charges of Second Degree Burglary under Case Nos. CF-2017-4883 and CF-2017-5420. These pleas were accepted by the Honorable Ray C. Elliott on November 15, 2017, as part of a plea agreement allowing Petitioner to enter the RID Program, with the potential for a more favorable sentence upon successful completion. His sentencing, set for September 19, 2018, was postponed to allow for completion of the program. Petitioner failed the RID Program and was charged with additional burglaries in Case No. CF-2018-2594. Pleas and sentencing for the three cases culminated on August 22, 2018, resulting in seven years imprisonment per case, ordered to run consecutively. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, which the trial court denied after a hearing. **Propositions of Error Raised by Petitioner:** 1. **Excessive Sentencing:** Petitioner claims the imposed sentences are shockingly excessive and not proportional to the crimes. The court finds this argument unpersuasive as the legislature defines punishment ranges for offenses. Given the nature of multiple burglaries, including home invasions, the maximum sentences were deemed appropriate. 2. **Restitution Order:** The claim regarding the trial court’s adherence to statutory procedures for restitution was waived, as it was not raised in the motion to withdraw the plea. 3. **Plea Agreement Not Honored:** Petitioner argues the trial court did not adhere to the plea agreement in CF-2018-2594. The court determined there was no formal plea agreement regarding concurrent sentencing; hence, the claim fails. 4. **Voluntariness of Pleas:** Petitioner asserts his pleas were not knowingly entered due to an alleged lack of understanding about possible sentencing. The court determined Petitioner was adequately informed about his potential sentencing and the implications of a blind plea. 5. **Bias of the Trial Court:** Petitioner claims bias during the proceedings; however, this issue was not preserved for appeal as it was not included in the withdrawal motion or addressed at the hearing. 6. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Petitioner asserts his appellate and trial counsel were ineffective, but these claims were not explicitly raised during the motion to withdraw. Concerning the effectiveness of conflict counsel at the withdrawal hearing, Petitioner failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. **DECISION:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED, and the Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. A mandate is ordered to be issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES:** - **For Petitioner at the Plea Hearing:** - Mark Hartshorn (Oklahoma City, OK) - **For Defense at Withdrawal Hearing:** - Thomas Hurley (Oklahoma City, OK) - **For the State:** - Dan Pond (Oklahoma City, OK) **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. **Concurred by:** LEWIS, P.J.; KUEHN, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; ROWLAND, J. --- **[Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-977_1734186380.pdf)**

RE-2012-0835

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 29, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2012-835, Lon Adam Smith appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the sentences and send them back to the district court for changes. One judge dissented. The case involved three separate convictions against Lon Adam Smith, who had initially entered pleas of no contest to the charges. His sentences were suspended as long as he successfully completed certain rehabilitation programs. However, after some time, the state claimed Smith had not followed through with these programs, which led to a hearing where Smith admitted to the violations. During the revocation hearing, the judge revoked Smith's suspended sentences and imposed longer terms of imprisonment, which raised concerns about whether these new sentences were valid given the original ones. The main issue was that the original sentences had been improperly processed. The judge had not followed the correct procedures for delaying the imposition of sentences as required by law. The court found that Smith's original sentences were improperly extended due to the judge's actions at the revocation hearing. It was determined that since Smith's initial sentences were set on a specific date, any new sentences imposed could not exceed the original terms. Therefore, the court ruled that the revocation sentences needed to start from the date of the original sentences. In the end, the court reversed the judge's decision, which meant that Smith's sentences had to be adjusted to reflect the proper starting dates and terms. The court ordered the district court to amend the sentences accordingly. This decision helps ensure fairness in the legal process and clarifies how long someone can be sentenced for violations of probation.

C-2002-633

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 26, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2002-633, Russell Snoe appealed his conviction for lewd and indecent proposal to a child and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Snoe's petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment and sentence of the trial court. One judge dissented. Snoe had entered a guilty plea in the District Court of Muskogee County, where he was sentenced to five years for one charge and one year for the other, with the sentences to be served at the same time if he completed a certain program. Later, Snoe wanted to take back his guilty plea and sent a letter to the court. The court held a hearing but did not allow him to withdraw his plea. Snoe argued that he did not have a fair chance because his lawyer did not help him correctly and that he was not given the right information about what the punishment could be. The court reviewed Snoe's case and agreed that he had not been clearly informed about his potential punishment. This mistake made his plea not valid. Since he had taken the plea thinking he faced a worse punishment than he actually could have, the court decided he needed another chance. As a result, the court reversed his earlier decision and allowed him to withdraw his plea.