Waiver of Claims Archives

C-2018-698

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 18, 2019
Post category:C

The text you provided is a legal summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, regarding the case of Joe Saucedo Guerrero. The opinion details the background of the case, the pleas entered by the petitioner, the subsequent motion to withdraw those pleas, and the court's final decision denying the petitioner's request for relief. Here is a breakdown of the main points: 1. **Case Background**: - Joe Saucedo Guerrero pled guilty to multiple charges including Lewd or Indecent Proposal to a Child, Soliciting a Minor for Indecent Exposure/Photos, and Possession of Child Pornography. - He was sentenced to a total of twenty years for the first seven counts and five years for the eighth count, with all sentences running consecutively. 2. **Motion to Withdraw Plea**: - Guerrero filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas shortly after sentencing, claiming his pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily, misunderstanding of the charges, ineffective assistance from his counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The judge denied this motion after a hearing where Guerrero was the only witness. 3. **Propositions of Error**: - The court examined Guerrero's arguments which included claims of inadequate factual basis for the pleas, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentences were excessive. - The court found that Guerrero had waived some claims due to failure to raise them properly in his motion or during the hearing. 4. **Court's Findings**: - The court held that Guerrero's pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily, especially since he had been informed of all charges and had signed a plea form acknowledging them. - The court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel that warranted the withdrawal of his plea. - The court concluded that the sentences imposed were within statutory limits and not excessive. 5. **Final Decision**: - The court denied Guerrero's petition for certiorari and affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence. This summary captures the critical elements of the judicial opinion and reflects the legal reasoning utilized by the court in reaching its conclusion.

C-2017-684

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2018
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-684, Bryan Lee Guy appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle, driving while his license was under suspension, and affixing an unauthorized license plate. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal and remand the case to the District Court for a determination of whether he is a mentally ill person exempt from paying the costs of incarceration. One judge dissented. Bryan Guy was charged with three offenses and entered a guilty plea for all of them. He received a sentence that included time in prison and jail, plus post-imprisonment supervision. After a few days, he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he didn't fully understand what he was doing or that he wasn't well advised by his lawyer. The court held a hearing but decided not to allow him to withdraw his plea. In his appeal, Bryan raised three main issues. He argued that he should be allowed to take back his guilty plea because it wasn't made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary way. He also complained about being charged for incarceration costs and claimed his lawyer didn't provide effective help. The court looked closely at Bryan’s arguments. It found that he didn’t prove that he didn’t understand his plea, concluding that the trial court acted fairly. Bryan's second point about the costs also didn't stand because he didn't raise it during the first hearing, which meant he could not bring it up later in his appeal. His claim about not getting good help from his lawyer was examined using a specific test. The court noted that Bryan claimed to have been misinformed about the minimum punishment for one of the offenses, but this did not affect the outcome since the misunderstanding was in his favor. Ultimately, the court found that there was a chance Bryan might be mentally ill, which means he might not have to pay for incarceration costs. This was a significant factor, leading to the decision to send the case back to the lower court for more examination of his mental health status. The final decision of the court was to deny the appeal for the first two issues but recognized the need to assess Bryan's mental health concerning the costs he was ordered to pay for incarceration. The case was remanded for that specific determination.