Withdrawal of Plea

C-2021-163

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2021-163, April Dawn Summers appealed her conviction for child abuse, child neglect, and enabling child abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court denied her appeal. One judge dissented. Summers was charged in Grady County with several serious offenses related to child abuse. She decided to plead guilty to these charges in December 2019. The judge accepted her plea but decided to wait to give her a sentence until a presentence investigation report was completed. In January 2021, after looking at evidence and hearing from lawyers, the judge sentenced Summers to fifty years in prison for each charge. However, she only had to serve twenty-five years, as the rest of her sentence was suspended. After sentencing, Summers wanted to change her guilty plea and claimed that she didn’t fully understand what she was doing when she pleaded guilty. She argued that her plea was not made knowingly or willingly, and she did not grasp the full consequences. She also said that she should not have to pay for the costs of her incarceration because of her mental health issues. The court reviewed her case and found that her plea was made voluntarily. They determined that she understood the charges and the risks of her guilty plea. Therefore, the court did not believe there was a reason to let her take back her plea. Regarding the costs of her incarceration, the court noted that Summers didn’t raise this issue when she tried to withdraw her plea. However, they acknowledged that her mental health might exempt her from such costs. Thus, they decided to investigate whether she is indeed considered mentally ill under the law, which could mean that she wouldn't have to pay. In summary, the court decided to keep her guilty plea in place, but they also said that it needs to be checked whether she qualifies as mentally ill to decide if she should be charged for her time in prison. The case was sent back to the lower court for further decisions on her mental health status.

Continue ReadingC-2021-163

C-2020-668

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2020-668, Jeffrey Montrell Alexander McClellan appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the lower court's order denying McClellan's application to withdraw his guilty plea and remanded the case for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. One judge dissented. McClellan had entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to twelve years in prison and fined one thousand dollars. Later, he wrote a letter to the court saying he wanted to appeal because he believed he didn’t have proper legal help. The court treated this letter as a request to withdraw his guilty plea, but this request was denied. McClellan’s main argument was that he was not given effective assistance of counsel, especially at the hearing where he wanted to withdraw his plea. He said that the attorney who was supposed to help him at the hearing had represented him during the plea, creating a conflict of interest. The court agreed with him, saying that defendants have a right to a lawyer who can represent their interests without any conflicts. Since McClellan’s attorney did not actively defend him during the hearing and was the same attorney who represented him at the plea, the court found this to be a problem. As a result, the court ordered that McClellan gets a new hearing to discuss withdrawing his guilty plea, but this time with a different attorney who has no conflicting interests.

Continue ReadingC-2020-668

C-2019-853

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2019-853, the petitioner appealed his conviction for first degree murder and larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case involved a woman who entered a guilty plea for two crimes: first degree murder and larceny of merchandise. She was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and thirty days for the larceny, with both sentences running at the same time. Later, she wanted to change her guilty plea and filed a motion to withdraw it. During the appeal, one major issue raised was whether the State of Oklahoma had the right to prosecute her. The woman argued that the state didn’t have jurisdiction because of her status as a member of a federally recognized tribe and the nature of the crime being committed within the reservation boundaries. The court looked at a recent Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, where it was determined that certain lands in Oklahoma are still recognized as Native American reservations. The court agreed with the petitioner about the jurisdiction issue. Both the petitioner and the state agreed on certain facts regarding her tribal membership and the location of the crime. Since the court found that the state did not have the right to prosecute the petitioner, it decided to vacate the earlier judgment and sentence. The decision meant that the petitioner would not face charges in state court but rather would need to be prosecuted in federal court because of her tribal affiliation and the location of the crime committed. This ruling highlighted the importance of understanding jurisdiction, especially when it involves Native American rights and lands.

Continue ReadingC-2019-853

C-2017-998

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-998, Arnold Dean Howell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate Howell's convictions and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Howell had pleaded guilty to the charges in the District Court of Creek County and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction and twenty-five years for the robbery conviction, with both sentences served one after the other. After the guilty plea, Howell filed a motion to withdraw it, which the district court denied. Howell then raised several issues in his appeal, questioning the state's authority to prosecute him, his competency to plead guilty, if his plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, whether he received good legal help, and if his sentence was too harsh. The important part of the appeal was Howell's claim regarding jurisdiction. He argued that the state did not have the right to prosecute him because he is considered an Indian under federal laws and the crimes happened within the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. This argument was based on a specific legal case called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which changed how certain cases with Indian individuals should be treated. In response to Howell's appeal, the court ordered a review of his case to determine if he was an Indian and if the crimes occurred on the reservation. During this review, both sides agreed on a few facts: Howell has Indian blood, is a registered citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation, and the crimes did occur within the reservation. The district court accepted these facts. Following this information, the court concluded that Howell is legally an Indian and that the state did not have authority over the case. As a result, the court decided Howell's conviction could not stand, and they vacated the lower court's judgment and ordered the case to be dismissed. In conclusion, Howell's legal challenges about how his case was handled were significant enough to require a reversal of his convictions based on the jurisdictional issues brought up by the McGirt decision. This decision demonstrates how important it is to understand the laws regarding tribal lands and individual rights within the legal system.

Continue ReadingC-2017-998

C-2018-640

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2018-640, Jimmie Dewayne Starr appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate his convictions and remand the case for dismissal. One judge dissented. Starr had entered a guilty plea for crimes in three different cases, including endangering others while trying to escape from police, failure to wear a seatbelt, possession of a controlled substance, resisting an officer, and bail jumping. He received several sentences that were ordered to be served concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time, rather than one after the other. After his sentencing, Starr wanted to withdraw his guilty plea, so he asked the court to allow it. The court held a hearing on Starr's request but ultimately denied it. This led to Starr appealing the decision, raising several issues including whether the court had the right to sentence him, whether he had good legal help, whether improper evidence led to an unfair sentence, and whether the state had jurisdiction in his case. The court looked closely at one of Starr's arguments about jurisdiction. He claimed that the State of Oklahoma didn't have the right to prosecute him based on a previous Supreme Court decision known as McGirt v. Oklahoma. This case said that certain crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal land must be handled in federal court, not state court. To investigate his claims, the court sent the case back to the lower district court to gather facts, specifically focusing on Starr's status as an Indian and whether the crime happened within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. Both sides agreed on several important facts about Starr's Indian blood, his membership in the Creek Nation, and that the crime occurred on Creek land. The district court accepted these facts and concluded that under federal law, Starr was indeed considered an Indian, and the crime took place on the reservation. Because of the ruling in the McGirt case, the appellate court decided that the state court did not have the authority to prosecute Starr. As a result, the appellate court vacated all of Starr's convictions, which means they were canceled, and they instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. This decision emphasized that Starr should be prosecuted in federal court instead of state court.

Continue ReadingC-2018-640

F-2019-149

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-149, Kimberli Sue Dunham appealed her conviction for multiple drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to terminate her from Drug Court and impose her sentences. One judge dissented. Dunham had been placed in the Delaware County Drug Court program after pleading guilty to several drug-related charges. The program was intended to help her recover from substance abuse. According to her agreement, if she was successful in the program, the charges would be dismissed. However, if she failed, she would face prison time. During her time in Drug Court, Dunham had several violations, including testing positive for methamphetamine. After admitting to more violations, the State sought her removal from the program. In a hearing, evidence of Dunham’s past violations was presented. The judge decided to terminate her from the program, leading to her appeal. In her appeal, Dunham claimed the termination was improper because she was sanctioned for previous violations. She also argued that the court did not follow proper procedures as required by the Oklahoma Drug Court Act, which aims to support individuals in recovery. Dunham claimed that a relapse should not automatically lead to termination and that the court should have used progressively increasing sanctions instead. The court reviewed these claims and found that Dunham had indeed admitted to new violations that justified her termination. Her request to consider her actions as mere relapses was denied, as the judge believed more severe action was necessary to maintain the integrity of the Drug Court program. Lastly, Dunham argued that she was misinformed about her rights to withdraw her guilty pleas. The court agreed that she should have been informed of her rights but ruled that her termination and conviction would still stand. The court upheld the trial court's decision but noted that it should have properly advised Dunham regarding her rights, allowing her the option to appeal her plea. Thus, while her conviction was confirmed, the case was remanded to correct the error about her rights.

Continue ReadingF-2019-149

C-2018-1018

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**Summary Opinion Denying Certiorari** **Case:** Spencer Joe Cuccaro v. State **Judging Authority:** Judge Hudson **Background:** Spencer Joe Cuccaro appealed from a ruling by the District Court of Kay County, where Judge David Bandy denied his application to withdraw pleas entered in three criminal cases. Cuccaro had participated in the Kay County Drug Court program and entered no contest pleas in various counts related to drug possession and other offenses, with a plea agreement tied to his performance in Drug Court. Cuccaro was allegedly coerced into his plea by a law enforcement officer and claimed to be unaware of the severe penalties he would face if he was unsuccessful in completing the Drug Court program. After being terminated from Drug Court for failing to meet its requirements and committing new crimes, Cuccaro received significant prison sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. Cuccaro argued that his no contest pleas were entered due to coercion and therefore were not knowing or voluntary. 2. He claimed he did not fully understand the severe consequences of failing the Drug Court program. **Court Findings:** - The Court reviews denials of motions to withdraw guilty pleas for abuse of discretion, primarily assessing if pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. - Cuccaro's challenge regarding coercion lacked evidence, and testimony at the hearing supported the conclusion that his plea was made with an understanding of the consequences. - Regarding the claim about the punishment understanding, the court noted that fully detailed documentation outlined the potential life sentence in the event of failure in Drug Court, which Cuccaro was aware of before entering his plea. **Conclusion:** The court denied Cuccaro’s petition for a writ of certiorari, affirmed the lower court's judgment, and ruled that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the plea withdrawal. The case exemplifies the requirement for defendants to understand the implications of their plea agreements and the importance of voluntary and informed consent in legal proceedings.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1018

C-2019-25

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Filed December 12, 2019** **Conner E. Dover, Petitioner, Case No. C-2019-25** **v.** **The State of Oklahoma, Respondent.** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Conner E. Dover, Petitioner, pled guilty to Count 1, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 4-402; and Count 2, aggravated attempting to elude a police officer, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 540(A)(B), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2018-610. The Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge, accepted the plea and delayed sentencing pending Petitioner's completion of a Regimented Inmate Discipline program. Judge Elliott later sentenced Petitioner to five (5) years imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. He now seeks a writ of certiorari, asserting the following proposition of error: The trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea when the court did not intend to sentence him in accordance with the plea agreement. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a court of competent jurisdiction (Weeks v. State, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 11, 362 P.3d 650, 654); whether the sentence is excessive (Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, ¶ 9, 341 P.3d 87, 90); whether counsel was constitutionally effective (Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 27, 932 P.2d 22, 31); and whether the State has the authority to prosecute the defendant at all (Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 12, 362 P.3d at 654). A valid plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant (North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion (Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40, 929 P.2d 988, 998), unless it involves a question of statutory or constitutional interpretation, which we review de novo (Weeks, 2015 OK CR 16, ¶ 16, 362 P.3d at 654). We find that Petitioner's plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the sentences he received does not provide sufficient grounds for withdrawal of a plea (Lozoya, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 44, 932 P.2d at 34; Estell v. State, 1988 OK CR 287, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 1380, 1383). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner's motion to withdraw the plea. No relief is warranted. **DECISION** The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. **APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY** **THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE** **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** ROBIN BRUNO ANDREA DIGILIO MILLER DANNY WHITE 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT (PLEA & SENTENCING) **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** THOMAS P. HURLEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 (WITHDRAWAL) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DAN POND ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 320 ROBERT S. KERR # 505 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE **OPINION BY:** LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur in Results **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **ROWLAND, J.:** Concur For more details, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2019-25_1733763771.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2019-25

C-2018-1184

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In the case of Hipolito John Herrera v. The State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed Herrera's appeal concerning his guilty plea to Conjoint Robbery. The key issues raised by Herrera were: 1. **Plea Validity**: Herrera argued that his guilty plea was not entered freely, knowingly, and intelligently, citing misadvice from his legal counsel regarding his potential maximum sentence. The State conceded this point, acknowledging that the plea was not made with the requisite understanding. The court found that this constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Herrera's motion to withdraw his plea. 2. **Restitution Order**: Herrera's second and third propositions focused on the restitution order, arguing that the trial court did not have sufficient proof of actual losses incurred by the victim and a bail bondsman, and that the bail bondsman should not be considered a victim under Oklahoma restitution laws. However, these propositions became moot due to the decision on the plea validity. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Herrera's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring a defendant's plea is made with full understanding and without coercion or misinformation. The judicial decision highlighted in the summary opinion grants Herrera relief, enabling him to withdraw his plea and possibly reassess the legal consequences and restitution implications of his case.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1184

C-2019-132

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2019 132, Brown appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In a published decision, the court denied his petition for certiorari, stating his plea was voluntary and intelligent. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]

Continue ReadingC-2019-132

C-2018-1050

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

This document appears to be a summary opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma regarding James Michael Simmons, who sought a writ of certiorari after pleading nolo contendere to a misdemeanor charge of making threats by electronic device. ### Key Points of the Summary Opinion: 1. **Case Information**: - **Petitioner**: James Michael Simmons. - **Respondent**: The State of Oklahoma. - **Case Number**: C-2018-1050. - **Trial Court**: Mayes County, Case No. CF-2017-350. 2. **Background**: - Simmons pled nolo contendere (no contest) to the charge and was granted deferred judgment for one year under probation conditions. - He later filed a motion to withdraw the plea, which the trial court denied. 3. **Propositions of Error**: - **Proposition 1**: Failure to use the uniform guilty plea form. - The court found no prejudice from the omission of the uniform form since the record was adequate for review. - **Proposition 2**: Claim of not understanding the plea’s consequences. - The court determined that the trial court provided sufficient advice regarding the plea's nature and consequences. - **Proposition 3**: Insufficient factual basis for the plea. - The court concluded there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea, affirming that the plea was entered correctly. - **Proposition 4**: Denial of effective assistance of counsel for both the plea and withdrawal process. - The court found no deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice. 4. **Decision**: - The petition for a writ of certiorari was denied, and the judgment and sentence were affirmed. 5. **Appearance**: - Various attorneys represented Simmons throughout the trial and appeal processes. ### Conclusion: The Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no basis for reversing the judgment based on the claims presented by Simmons. The opinion indicates that procedural and substantive requirements were satisfactorily met during the plea process.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1050

C-2018-977

  • Post author:
  • 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)**

Continue ReadingC-2018-977

C-2018-1235

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AUGUST 29, 2019** **CASE NO. C-2018-1235** **ROY DEAN HARJO,** *Petitioner,* **vs.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** *Respondent.* **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** Roy Dean Harjo entered a blind plea to Counts I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, and Counts II-V, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, after previous convictions for two or more felonies, in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2017-665. Following a sentencing hearing, the Honorable John Canavan sentenced Harjo to life on each Count I-V, concurrent for Counts II-V but consecutive to Count I, requiring Harjo to serve 85% before parole eligibility. Harjo filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, which was denied after a hearing on November 28, 2018. Harjo then filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asserting four propositions of error: I. Harjo should be allowed to withdraw his pleas for Counts II-V due to lack of factual basis. II. His plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was uninformed about sentencing ranges, violating his rights under the Constitution. III. His plea was not knowing and voluntary due to misinformation regarding sentencing. IV. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Decision:** After comprehensive review, we find the evidence does not warrant relief. Proposition I cannot be considered as it was not presented in the motion to withdraw or the certiorari petition. In Propositions II and III, we find the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Harjo's assertion that he believed he would receive a thirty-year maximum sentence is contradicted by the record, which shows he understood the plea form stating potential life sentences. Therefore, his claims regarding plea counsel’s advice lack merit. In Proposition IV, we determine that there was no ineffective assistance from either plea or conflict counsel. Harjo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea is unsupported, as ample facts exist to justify the plea. Any assertion that conflict counsel was ineffective for not challenging plea counsel also fails, as no substantial claims could have been made given the determination of a solid factual basis. **Conclusion:** The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is therefore **DENIED**. Upon filing this decision, the **MANDATE is ORDERED issued.** **This decision is concurred by all Justices.** --- *To view the complete decision, click [here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-1235_1734229271.pdf).*

Continue ReadingC-2018-1235

C-2018-1119

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **AARON MARCUS SHORES,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-1119** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **ROWLAND, JUDGE:** Petitioner Aaron Marcus Shores entered a negotiated plea of no contest in the District Court of LeFlore County to resolve his felony and misdemeanor charges in three cases. The charges included: 1. **Case No. CF-2018-239:** Failure to Notify Address Change of Sex Offender (felony). 2. **Case No. CM-2018-371:** Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (misdemeanor). 3. **Case No. CM-2018-373:** Malicious Injury to Property Under $1,000.00 (misdemeanor). Pursuant to the plea agreement, one count of Obstructing an Officer and one count of Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia were dismissed by the State. Judge Marion Fry subsequently sentenced Shores to four years of imprisonment on the felony count and one year in the county jail for each misdemeanor count, with all sentences running concurrently. He was also ordered one year of post-imprisonment supervision and awarded credit for time served. Shores filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing. He appeals this denial, claiming: 1. The district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea as he did not receive the benefits of his plea bargain. 2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel. **1. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Plea** Shores argues he did not receive the promised benefits of his plea bargain. The court evaluated this claim against the standard set forth in *Couch v. State*, noting that promises made in plea agreements must be fulfilled. While Shores did not specifically raise his current argument in his initial motion to withdraw, it was discussed during the evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reviews the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmatively holds that Shores received the benefits of his plea agreement. The district court's order confirmed that Shores's Oklahoma sentences would run concurrently with his sentences from Arkansas, fulfilling the terms agreed upon during the plea process. **2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel** Shores claims ineffective assistance from conflict counsel, who allegedly failed to preserve his claim regarding the benefits of the plea agreement. To prevail on such a claim, Shores must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. The court found that conflict counsel adequately raised Shores's concerns at the withdrawal hearing, effectively preserving the issue for appeal. Therefore, Shores could not establish that his counsel's performance resulted in any prejudice. **CONCLUSION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The district court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to withdraw plea is AFFIRMED. **MANDATE ordered to be issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.** **Appearances:** - Doug Schmuck, Appellate Defense Counsel, for Petitioner. - Matt McBee, Counsel for Withdraw Motion. - Kevin Merritt and Margaret Nicholson, Assistant District Attorneys for the State. --- This summary is designed for clarity and understanding without retaining excessive legal jargon, while accurately reflecting the decisions and arguments presented in the original case summary.

Continue ReadingC-2018-1119

C-2018-698

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingC-2018-698

C-2018-834

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF OKLAHOMA** FILED JUN 27 2019 **Case No. C-2018-834** **TAMMERA RACHELLE BAKER,** Petitioner, vs. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Respondent. --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Tammera Rachelle Baker, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of guilty to first degree manslaughter, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711, in the District Court of Delaware County, Case No. CF-2017-157. The Honorable Robert G. Haney, District Judge, found Petitioner guilty. The Honorable Barry V. Denny, Associate District Judge, later sentenced Appellant to thirty (30) years imprisonment, with ten (10) years suspended, and a $1,000.00 fine. Petitioner filed an application to withdraw the plea, which was denied. She now seeks a writ of certiorari in the following propositions of error: 1. The plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered into as Petitioner believed the court would not impose more than ten years and relied on misinformation from her attorney regarding witness testimony. 2. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during her plea proceedings. 3. The sentence imposed post-plea is shockingly excessive due to improper victim impact statements. Certiorari review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently before a competent jurisdiction, whether the sentence is excessive, whether counsel was constitutionally effective, and whether the State has the power to prosecute. The Court will not review issues not raised in the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion unless it involves statutory or constitutional interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. **Proposition One**: Petitioner argues her plea was involuntary due to reliance on her attorney's misinformation regarding sentencing expectations. The record refutes this argument, indicating that the plea was voluntary; therefore, no relief is warranted. **Proposition Two**: Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and requests an evidentiary hearing. Claims are assessed under the Strickland v. Washington test. Petitioner has not shown clear evidence to support a finding of ineffective assistance, thus this proposition and the request for a hearing are denied. **Proposition Three**: Petitioner claims her sentence is excessive. The Court will only disturb a sentence within statutory limits if it shocks the conscience. The facts of this case do not meet that threshold, so no relief is warranted. **DECISION**: The petition for the writ of certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** **TRIAL** Lee Griffin, Attorney for Appellant Kathy Baker, Attorney for Withdrawal **APPEAL** Katrina Conrad-Legler, Attorney for Appellant Nicholas P. Lelecas, Assistant District Attorney for the State **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur LUMPKIN, J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- For full ruling, [click here to download the PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-834_1734180202.pdf).

Continue ReadingC-2018-834

C-2018-685

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ORIE DANIEL HILL,** **Petitioner,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-685** **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: **Background:** Orie Daniel Hill, Petitioner, entered a blind plea of nolo contendere to multiple charges including: first-degree rape (victim under age fourteen), rape by instrumentation, lewd or indecent acts to a child under sixteen, and child sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently and mandated three years of post-imprisonment supervision. Hill later filed a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Issues Raised:** 1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying Hill's motion to withdraw his plea; 2. Hill was denied effective assistance of counsel. **Facts:** The case involved allegations against Hill related to inappropriate sexual behavior towards an 8-year-old girl, A.H. The investigation included statements from the victim and forensic evidence, including DNA linking Hill to the offenses. **Analysis:** The court's review is limited to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, whether the sentence was excessive, and whether counsel was effective. The burden is on Hill to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective or that he did not fully understand the plea agreement. 1. **Proposition One:** The court concluded that Hill knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea. He was informed of his rights and the potential consequences. Despite Hill's claim of feeling pressure and receiving poor legal advice, the court found no evidence supporting these assertions. 2. **Proposition Two:** Hill’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, which requires showing both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court ruled that counsel’s advice was sound and appropriately reflected the realities of the situation, including the potential for harsher sentences if the case went to trial. **Conclusion:** The petition for a writ of certiorari is DENIED, and the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. **MANDATE:** Ordered issued upon delivery and filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES:** - **For Appellant:** David R. Slane; Nicollette Brandt - **For the State:** Chris Anderson, Assistant District Attorney **OPINION BY:** Lewis, P.J. **Concur:** Kuehn, V.P.J.; Lumpkin, J.; Hudson, J.; Rowland, J. [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-685_1734175737.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-685

C-2018-927

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **SAHIB QUIETMAN HENDERSON,** **Petitioner,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Respondent.** **Case No. C-2018-927** **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY 30, 2019** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** --- **SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Sahib Quietman Henderson entered a blind plea of guilty to Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 2,000 feet of a School in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-2016-393. The plea was accepted by the Honorable Ken J. Graham, District Judge, on April 30, 2018, with sentencing delayed until July 25, 2018. On that date, Petitioner was sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison, with the first fifteen (15) years to be served and the remaining fifteen (15) years suspended, alongside a fine of $2,500.00. On August 2, 2018, represented by counsel, Petitioner filed an Application to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. At hearings on August 20 and 22, 2018, Judge Graham denied the motion to withdraw. Petitioner appeals the denial and raises the following propositions of error: 1. Failure of the State and District Court to honor the promised consideration for Appellant's plea requires modification of his inflated sentence, or an opportunity to withdraw his plea. 2. The sentence is shockingly excessive given the circumstances of the case. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel in identifying, presenting, and preserving issues for review. After thorough review of these propositions and the entirety of the record, including original record, transcripts, and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required. Our primary concern in evaluating the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently. Petitioner carries the burden of proving his plea was entered unadvisedly, through influence, or without deliberation. Voluntariness is assessed through the entire record. In **Proposition I**, Petitioner claims that the plea lacked a knowing and voluntary nature due to non-fulfillment of a promise that he would be sentenced as a first-time offender and because of purported drug buys by his wife reducing his sentence. Contrary to this argument, the record shows Petitioner was treated as a first-time offender, with the court considering the mitigating factors at sentencing. His dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence does not provide grounds for withdrawal of the plea. In **Proposition II**, Petitioner contends the sentence is excessive. However, as he did not raise this claim in his Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea to the trial court, it is waived on appeal. In **Proposition III**, Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel during both the plea and withdrawal hearings. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is only established by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that it resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The record does not support that withdrawal counsel's performance was deficient or that it affected the outcome—Petitioner maintained he did not wish to withdraw his plea but rather sought a sentence modification. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon this decision. --- **APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT:** Grant D. Shepherd 601 S.W. C Ave., Ste. 201 Lawton, OK 73501 Counsel for the Defense **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL:** Kimberly D. Heinze P.O. Box 926 Norman, OK 73070 Counsel for Petitioner at the Plea Hearing Ronald L. Williams P.O. Box 2095 Lawton, OK 73502 Counsel for the Defense at the Withdrawal Hearing Jason M. Hicks District Attorney Cortnie Siess & Greg Steward Assistant District Attorneys Stephens Co. Courthouse 101 S. 11th St., Duncan, OK 73533 Counsel for the State **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, J. LEWIS, P.J.: Concur KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur HUDSON, J.: Concur ROWLAND, J.: Concur --- [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/C-2018-927_1734182885.pdf)

Continue ReadingC-2018-927

C-2018-489

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

**SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI** **LUMPKIN, JUDGE:** Petitioner Mario Donsheau Cherry entered blind pleas of guilty to multiple charges including First Degree Manslaughter, Causing an Accident Resulting in Great Bodily Injury, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident, among others, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. His pleas were accepted by the Honorable Bill Graves on February 23, 2018. After a sentencing hearing on April 5, 2018, Cherry was sentenced to life in prison on some counts, with additional sentences for other counts that ran concurrently. On April 12, 2018, he filed an application to withdraw his plea, which was denied on May 4, 2018. Cherry appeals this denial, raising the following issues: 1. **Denial of Withdrawal of Plea:** Cherry argues he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily partly because he was not adequately informed about waiving his right to appeal. 2. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** He claims his counsel did not sufficiently inform him about the consequences of waiving his appeal rights through his plea. 3. **Excessive Sentence:** Cherry contends that the imposed sentences are excessive and shock the conscience. After reviewing the case, including the original record and briefs, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cherry's motion to withdraw his plea. The court cited that the plea was determined to be knowing and voluntary as Cherry acknowledged understanding of the consequences including the nature and severity of the charges and the rights he was waiving. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court noted that this claim was not raised in the initial application to withdraw the plea or in the petition for certiorari, resulting in a waiver for appellate review. On the issue of sentencing, the court confirmed that the sentences were within statutory guidelines and that running some counts consecutively was within the trial court’s discretion. The court found no excessive or shocking elements in the imposed sentence in light of Cherry's guilty admissions and prior felony history. **DECISION** The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Continue ReadingC-2018-489

C-2017-1311

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-1311, Heath Justin Wright appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including Second Degree Burglary, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant relief to Wright, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. One judge dissented. Wright entered a negotiated plea without legal counsel and was accepted into the Pontotoc County Drug Court program. His plea agreement stated that if he successfully completed the program, his charges would be dismissed. However, if he failed, he would receive a lengthy prison sentence for each charge. After the State sought to terminate him from the drug court program, Wright tried to withdraw his plea. The court denied his request and sentenced him to the agreed-upon prison terms. Wright claimed his attorney did not assist him properly. He argued that he was not warned about the risks of representing himself in court. The court found that this lack of advice affected his decision to plead guilty. Since it was clear that Wright’s attorney did not address this issue, the court decided he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and face trial for the charges. The ruling concluded that because the initial plea was handled improperly, Wright should get another chance to defend himself in court.

Continue ReadingC-2017-1311

C-2017-684

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingC-2017-684

C-2016-877

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-877, Charles David Miller appealed his conviction for multiple charges including stalking and possession of a firearm during a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Miller’s petition in part. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences for some counts but reversed the sentence for Count 1 and dismissed Count 4 due to double punishment concerns. One judge dissented. The case began when Miller, facing serious charges, entered a guilty plea in December 2014, agreeing to certain terms. He was originally given deferred sentences, meaning he would not serve time in prison if he followed the terms of his probation. However, after a hearing in 2015, the court ruled to impose a harsher sentence because Miller did not comply with the terms, leading to his appeal. Throughout the appeal, Miller argued that his guilty plea should be withdrawn for several reasons. He claimed there was no factual reason for his plea, that he was not made aware of his rights, and expressed concerns about double punishment as well as the effectiveness of his lawyer. The court reviewed the details and concluded that Miller had not shown enough grounds for his claims because some issues were not raised earlier in court, making them not eligible for review. The court particularly focused on whether Miller's plea was voluntary and if he was properly informed. They found that while Miller's plea might have been motivated by a desire to get his car back, he did understand the consequences of his actions. The court upheld the judgment for some counts, but it noted that the sentence for Count 1 was illegal because it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. As a result, they ordered a new sentencing for that count and dismissed Count 4 entirely because of double punishment. In summary, the main points were that Miller wanted to reverse his guilty plea but the court found many of his arguments unsubstantiated. They decided to change his sentence on one charge while dismissing another, affirming the result on several others.

Continue ReadingC-2016-877

C-2016-40

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-40, Deandre Lashawn Henderson appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm after a former conviction of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal. The court affirmed the convictions for Counts 1 and 5, but reversed and vacated the judgments for Counts 2 through 4. One justice dissented. The case began when Henderson entered a negotiated Alford plea, which means he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for the sake of a more favorable sentence. He was sentenced to twenty years for the assault counts and ten years for the possession count, all to be served concurrently, meaning at the same time. Later, Henderson wanted to withdraw his plea. He claimed that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. He also said that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer and that the trial court should have appointed a different lawyer due to a conflict of interest. During the appeal, the court looked closely at whether Henderson's plea was made voluntarily and if the district court had the authority to accept it. The court found that Henderson's plea was indeed voluntary because he knew the charges and the consequences. His choice to accept the plea was motivated by a desire to reduce his overall prison time, especially given the evidence against him. However, the court agreed that Henderson's lawyer should have argued that some of the charges violated the double jeopardy clause, which means he shouldn't be punished multiple times for the same act. The court found that the counts for assault stemmed from the same event and that it was wrong to punish him multiple times for it. Therefore, while verifying his conviction for some counts, the court ruled that the counts of conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon were not valid as they violated his rights. This decision meant that Henderson would not have to serve time for those three convictions but would still be sentenced for the other charges. Overall, the court upheld some aspects of the conviction but also corrected parts that were not handled properly.

Continue ReadingC-2016-40

C-2015-856

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-856, Misty Dawn Smith appealed her conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to deny Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari but modified her post-imprisonment supervision from two years to one year. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with having methamphetamine and entered a guilty plea in December 2012. She was supposed to complete a drug court program which could lead to a lighter sentence. If she did well, her sentence would be a five-year suspended sentence and a fine. If she didn't, she could face ten years in prison and a larger fine. She was taken to a treatment facility and started the drug court program in May 2013. However, in July 2015, the state asked to remove her from this program because she was not following the rules. A judge agreed, and Smith was sentenced to ten years in prison and a fine. Smith wanted to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that she didn’t understand everything about her plea and the consequences of the drug court program. She also argued that her sentence was too harsh. The court looked at these claims but determined that there was no reason to allow her to change her plea. Her initial plea was considered to be made knowingly and voluntarily. The court found that Smith knew about the difficult nature of the drug court program and that she had many chances to follow the rules. They also stated that she didn’t raise her claim about the excessive sentence in the correct way, and therefore, it could not be considered. The court agreed that the two years of post-imprisonment supervision given to her was incorrect and lowered it to one year, which is what the law allows. The decision was made after reviewing all details and records of the case.

Continue ReadingC-2015-856

C-2015-1057

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-1057, Steven Casey Jones appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition and allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Here’s a simpler breakdown of what happened in this case: Steven Casey Jones was charged with robbery involving a dangerous weapon. He decided to plead guilty to this charge as part of an agreement, thinking he would get a lighter sentence. However, after he pleaded guilty, he felt that he had been given wrong information about the punishment he could face. Jones said that his attorney told him the minimum punishment was twenty years in prison, but he later found out that it was actually less. Because of this wrong information, he felt he had to plead guilty to a fifteen-year sentence, which was still longer than what it should have been. He later tried to take back his guilty plea, but this was denied. So, he appealed the decision in court, wanting to show that his plea was not made with the correct information. The court reviewed the entire case, including what Jones and his attorney had discussed. It turned out that the attorney's mistake about the punishment range was significant. The State also agreed that this error could have influenced Jones's decision. Due to this mistake, the court decided to let Jones withdraw his guilty plea and go back to the start of his case. This meant he would have another chance to present his arguments about the robbery charge without the misunderstanding affecting him. After considering everything, the court decided to grant Jones's petition, which means they agreed with him and wanted to fix the mistake. The case was sent back to the lower court to allow Jones to withdraw his plea.

Continue ReadingC-2015-1057