Bush v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. DC–2009–1113.,DC–2009–1113. |
| Citation | 280 P.3d 337,2012 OK CR 9 |
| Parties | Ronson Kyle BUSH, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
An Appeal from the District Court of Grady County; The Honorable Richard Van Dyck, District Judge.
¶ 0 RONSON KYLE BUSH entered an Alford plea to one count of First Degree Murder and entered a guilty plea to one count of Possession of a Firearm after Conviction of a Felony in Case No. CF–2008–371 in the District Court of Grady County before the Richard Van Dyck, District Judge. The trial court sentenced Bush to death for the first degree murder count and life imprisonment on the firearm charge. Bush perfected an appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Judgment and Sentence for all counts is AFFIRMED.
Mary S. Bruehl, Vicky Floyd, Indigent Defense System, attorneys for defendant at trial.
Bret T. Burns, District Attorney, Leah Edwards, Assistant District Attorney, Chickasha, OK, attorneys for the state at trial.
Traci J. Quick, Michael Morehead, Indigent Defense System, Norman, OK, attorneys for petitioner on appeal.
E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Jennifer Dickson, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for respondent on appeal.
¶ 1 Ronson Kyle Bush, was charged with first degree murder in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2004, § 701.7(A), and possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1283, in Grady County District Court case number CF–2008–371. The State filed a Bill of Particulars regarding the punishment for first degree murder, which alleged three aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; (2) there exists a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence such that he would constitute a continuing threat to society; and (3) the murder was committed by the defendant while he was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a conviction for a felony. 21 O.S.2001, § 701.12(4), (6), and (7).
¶ 2 Bush proceeded to trial on October 19, 2009, before the Honorable Richard G. Van Dyck, District Judge. After the State had presented its second witness, on October 22, Bush expressed his desire to enter a blind plea. The trial court conducted a plea hearing and allowed Bush to enter an Alford1 plea to first degree murder and a guilty plea to possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony. The next day a non-jury sentencing proceeding commenced pursuant to 21 O.S.2001 701.10(B). Sometime during the first day of sentencing, Bush told the trial court that he wanted to withdraw his pleas, but the trial court denied his motion and advised him to wait until after being sentenced to move to withdraw the plea. At the conclusion of sentencing trial Judge Van Dyck found the existence of all three aggravating circumstances and assessed punishment at death on the first degree murder; the trial court assessed a life sentence on the firearm charge.
¶ 3 After being sentenced, and within the requisite ten day period, Bush filed a motion to withdraw his plea on November 9, 2009, the specifics of which are discussed below in our evaluation of propositions one and two. The trial court held a hearing on the motion and, at the conclusion of the hearing, denied the motion. Bush is now before this Court with his appeal from the trial court's decision and with his appeal from the Judgment and Sentence.2
¶ 4 On the evening of December 22, 2008, while at Billy Harrington's home, Ronson Bush shot Harrington six times with Harrington's .357 caliber revolver. Harrington made it to the front yard of the home, where he collapsed. Bush then tied Harrington to the back of his pickup and dragged him into a field near the house.
¶ 5 By all accounts, Harrington and Bush had been best friends for a number of years. Harrington did what he could to aid Bush who dealt with addictions, paranoia, and other related mental illnesses. Harrington's final attempts to assist Bush came just days before the shooting. On December 18, Harrington attempted to take Bush to Griffin Memorial Hospital in Norman, Oklahoma but Bush was exceedingly drunk, and the two men fought during the trip. Harrington left Bush in a parking lot in Norman, and drove on to Tulsa for work. Bush hitched a ride back to Harrington's trailer. When Harrington arrived home that evening, accompanied by Jimmy Barrington, they found Bush passed out on the couch with Harrington's firearms purposefully placed around the house.
¶ 6 After calling the sheriff's office to send someone to the house, Harrington again agreed to take Bush back to Griffin Memorial Hospital, where Bush voluntarily admitted himself for treatment. Bush, however, on December 22, checked himself out of the hospital, called Harrington for a ride, and returned to Harrington's home. Bush drank vodka from a pint bottle purchased in Blanchard on the way home. Once home, both men shot guns off the porch and played with Harrington's dog. Harrington also gave Bush a haircut.
¶ 7 Sometime around 7:15 p.m., Harrington was talking on the phone with his girlfriend who could hear Bush in the background. Bush took a photograph of Harrington and nothing seemed amiss; minutes later, however, Bush shot and killed Harrington.
¶ 8 Bush explained that things started downhill when he mentioned getting Christmas presents for Stephanie Morgan, an ex-girlfriend, and her son. Bush said that Harrington told him that he should forget about Morgan as she was sleeping with other people. According to Bush, Harrington went on to say that even he had “fucked” her. Bush said he then snapped, picked up the .357 revolver, and started shooting Harrington. Bush kept shooting as Harrington got up, went to the kitchen, collapsed, then got up and walked outside.
¶ 9 At around 7:44 p.m. Harrington's mother, Kathy Harrington, tried to call Harrington's cell phone, but Bush answered. Bush kept putting Mrs. Harrington off, probably because Harrington was already dead. Mrs. Harrington called friends who went to the home and discovered Harrington's body in the field.
¶ 10 Bush, in the mean time, left the trailer in Harrington's truck, bought some beer, and drove to Ms. Morgan's home. Bush kicked in the back door and entered Morgan's unoccupied home. He waited on her to arrive and drank some alcohol from a commemorative bottle she had stored in her bedroom.
¶ 11 Morgan arrived home and was unable to turn on the bedroom lights. She heard Bush say that he heard her come in. Bush was in the bedroom lying on the bed. Morgan tried to get away by walking out and getting in her car. Bush, however, got in the passenger side. Morgan was finally able to let someone know that Bush was there, get him out of the car, and drive away.
¶ 12 Authorities arrived at Morgan's home, and Bush was arrested for violating a protective order Morgan had against him. Bush, at the time of the arrest, confessed to shooting Harrington.
¶ 13 In propositions one and two, Bush argues that he entered his Alford and guilty pleas due to ignorance, inadvertence, misunderstanding and misinformation and he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in pursuing his motion to withdraw those pleas. The State claims that Bush has waived any attacks on the plea proceedings, because he told the trial court that he did not want to withdraw his pleas.
¶ 14 In response, Bush counters that the record is, at least, unclear regarding his desire to seek to withdraw his pleas, and moreover, if he intended to waive his right to appeal the guilty plea, the proper procedure to determine his competency to do so was not followed.
¶ 15 Bush bases his claim of ignorance, inadvertence, misunderstanding and misinformation on discussions between Bush and the trial court. Bush stated that he wanted to waive jury trial and enter the plea so that his and the victim's family would not have to go through the pain of testifying. Then, showing his misunderstanding of the law, Bush was allegedly surprised to find that the family members would be required to testify during the sentencing stage, so he told the Court he wanted to withdraw his pleas, because the thing he wanted to avoid was happening anyway.
¶ 16 Bush explained that he was not aware that the family members would be testifying during the second stage and that he wanted to withdraw his plea. He explained that he had evidence that was relevant for first stage to show that he did not commit the murder with premeditation.
¶ 17 The trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, denied Bush's oral motion to withdraw and informed him that he could file a motion to withdraw his pleas after sentencing if he chose to do so. While a trial court may allow a guilty plea to be withdrawn anytime before judgment, 22 O.S.2001, § 517, there is no right to appeal a decision denying the motion in an interlocutory manner. See Nguyen v. State, 1989 OK CR 6, ¶¶ 6–7, 772 P.2d 401, 403,overruled on other grounds in Gonseth v. State, 1994 OK CR 9, 871 P.2d 51 (). A defendant may always seek to withdraw his plea within ten days after the entry of judgment and sentence by following Rule 4.2, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2012).
¶ 18 Bush followed the procedure of Rule 4.2 and filed a motion to withdraw his plea soon after he was sentenced. He reurged his claim that his plea was entered through inadvertence, ignorance or mistake. He further claimed the pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered; the pleas were entered due to coercion; the sentences were excessive; he was not mentally competent to enter the pleas, nor was he competent at the time of the crime; and he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel during the proceedings.
¶ 19 The trial court set a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bench v. State
...behavior has demonstrated a threat to society and a probability that this threat would continue to exist in the future. Bush v. State , 2012 OK CR 9, ¶ 42, 280 P.3d 337, 347. Evidence evincing that the murder was callous can be considered as supporting the existence of a continuing threat. ......
-
Bosse v. State, D–2012–1128
...case, and thus defeats the narrowing function required in capital cases. We have repeatedly rejected this argument. See , e.g. , Bush v. State , 2012 OK CR 9, ¶ 62–64, 280 P.3d 337, 349–50 ; Malone , 2007 OK CR 34, ¶ 46, 168 P.3d at 204. ¶ 57 In his second subproposition, Bosse claims that ......
-
Bush v. Carpenter
...a protective order Morgan had against him. Bush, at the time of the arrest, confessed to shooting Harrington. Bush v. State, 280 P.3d 337, 342–43 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) ( Bush I ) (paragraph numbers and footnotes omitted). Bush’s state trial proceedingsThe OCCA in Bush I also summarized Bu......
-
Frederick v. State
...any rational trier of fact could have found the facts necessary to support the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Bush v. State , 2012 OK CR 9, ¶ 31, 280 P.3d 337, 345.¶ 106 As addressed in Proposition XI, Appellant's First Degree Burglary conviction did not contain evidenc......