Timely Hearing Archives - OCCA Opinions

C-2019-125

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:December 5, 2019
Post category:C

**Case Summary: Cody Allen Blessing v. The State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case No.:** C-2019-125 **Filed:** December 5, 2019 **Judge:** Rowland **Background:** Cody Allen Blessing entered a negotiated plea of no contest in the District Court of Alfalfa County to three counts of Child Abuse by Injury. His plea was accepted by the Honorable Loren Angle, who sentenced him to twenty years in prison on each count, with all but the first five years suspended, to be served concurrently. Subsequently, Blessing filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, among other issues. **Issues on Appeal:** 1. Denial of due process due to the hearing on his plea withdrawal not being held within thirty days. 2. Abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel. **Court Findings:** 1. **Due Process Claim:** - The Court found that although the hearing was not held within the thirty-day timeframe set by court rules, the failure to do so was deemed harmless as a proper hearing was eventually conducted. Blessing did not seek extraordinary relief for the delay, thus the claim was denied. 2. **Withdrawal of Plea:** - Blessing claimed his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. However, he failed to express this specific claim in his initial motion to withdraw, but it was presented by conflict counsel at the hearing. The district court found that Blessing understood the implications of his plea. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** - Blessing argued that conflict counsel's failure to raise the issue of a knowing and voluntary plea waived it for appellate review. The Court ruled that since the claim was presented during the withdrawal hearing, it remained preserved for review. Blessing could not demonstrate any resultant prejudice from counsel's actions. Therefore, this claim was also rejected. **Decision:** The Court denied the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and affirmed the district court's denial of Blessing's motion to withdraw his plea. **Signatories:** - Opinion by: Rowland, J. - Concurrences: Lewis, P.J.; Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J. **For Further Information:** You can download the detailed opinion from the court [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-125_1734230491.pdf).

RE-2007-1233

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:April 22, 2009
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2007-1233, Jeffrey Allen Holden appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape and one count of First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's ruling and dismiss the State's application to revoke Holden's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holden had originally entered a guilty plea and was given a long sentence with part of it suspended. However, he was accused of violating probation by contacting the victim while in prison. The rules say that a hearing to revoke a suspended sentence needs to happen within twenty days after the guilty plea. When the second hearing wasn't conducted on time, Holden argued that the court didn't have the power to proceed. The court ultimately agreed with Holden, ruling that the process was not followed correctly, and because of this, they did not have the authority to go forward with the revocation. Therefore, the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the application.

C-2007-821

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:December 16, 2008
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2007-821, Marcus D. Carter appealed his conviction for Failure to Comply with Sex Offender Registration Act. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a new hearing on Carter's motion to withdraw his plea. One justice dissented. Carter entered a plea of no contest to the charges against him and was sentenced to five years in prison, which would run at the same time as another sentence he had. After his plea, he wanted to withdraw it and filed a motion for that. However, the court did not hold the required hearing to address his motion within the thirty days that should have been allotted. Carter claimed this was unfair and that he did not get the help he needed from his attorney. The court looked at two important questions: whether Carter's plea was made knowingly and willingly and if the court had the authority to accept it. His argument that the court did not hold the hearing on time was not considered valid for this appeal. However, the court did find that Carter had a right to effective legal representation, which he claimed he did not receive. He stated that his attorney pressured him into taking the plea and led him to misunderstand his potential punishments, making his plea involuntary. The judge noticed that during the hearing, Carter's attorney did not actively support him, as she seemed to be in a difficult situation where she could not defend him without also admitting her own shortcomings. Since there was a conflict of interest, it was decided that Carter should have a new hearing with a different attorney who would not have conflicting interests. The court agreed to grant Carter's request and sent the case back to the lower court for a proper hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, ensuring he would have the assistance of a conflict-free attorney.