**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SEAN ALAN REYNOLDS,**
Petitioner,
v.
**THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,**
Respondent. **Case No. C-2018-410** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA**
**APR 18 2019**
**JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- ### SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sean Alan Reynolds entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the District Court of LeFlore County, Case No. CF-2016-1365, to Soliciting Sexual Conduct or Communication with a Minor by Use of Technology (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1040.13a, and Possession of Juvenile Pornography (Count 3), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. On March 7, 2018, the Honorable Marion D. Fry, Associate District Judge, accepted Reynolds' guilty plea and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment on Count 1. On Count 3, Reynolds was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment with all but the first ten years suspended. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Reynolds filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He now appeals the denial of that motion and raises the following issues: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying his plea withdrawal on the grounds that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered;
2. Whether the district court erred by failing to conduct the requested competency hearing;
3. Whether the special condition of probation restricting his internet use is overly broad and infringes upon his rights;
4. Whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea**
Reynolds argues that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily, claiming the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. The standard of review for such cases is whether there was an abuse of discretion. The district court's decision, based on testimony, demeanor, and the plea form, supports that Reynolds' plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plea withdrawal. **2. Competency Hearing**
Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in not ordering a mental health evaluation before ruling on the plea withdrawal motion. However, the record reflects that the district court established Reynolds' competency when accepting his plea. There was no indication during the plea hearing of any mental incapacity, and therefore, the court acted within its discretion by not ordering further evaluation. **3. Condition of Probation**
Reynolds challenges a condition of probation prohibiting internet usage for five years, arguing it's overly broad. However, this issue was not raised in his motion to withdraw the plea, leading to a waiver of appellate review on this matter. **4. Effective Assistance of Counsel**
Finally, Reynolds argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. To succeed, he must demonstrate both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. He claims his counsel did not address his alleged mental health issues, but there was no evidence presented at the plea hearing to suggest incapacity. Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to cite non-binding cases. Therefore, Reynolds has failed to show he was denied effective assistance of counsel. ### DECISION The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is **DENIED**. The district court's denial of Petitioner's motion to withdraw plea is **AFFIRMED**. The MANDATE is ordered issued. --- **APPEARANCES IN THE DISTRICT COURT**
**CYNTHIA VIOL**
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER **KIMBERLY D. HEINZE**
PLEA COUNSEL **MATTHEW R. PRICE**
MOTION TO WITHDRAW COUNSEL **MIKE HUNTER**
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA --- **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.**
**LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur in Results
**KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur
**LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur
**HUDSON, J.:** Concur [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-410_1734106115.pdf)
