Davis v. State, C-84-60
| Decision Date | 24 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-84-60,C-84-60 |
| Citation | 704 P.2d 497 |
| Parties | James L. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CRF-82-575. The court deferred Judgment and Sentence for two years. Subsequently, petitioner was charged with ten felonies, the deferred sentence was accelerated, and he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. The petitioner filed a motion for new trial alleging the acceleration of his deferred sentence was contrary to law and evidence, there were insufficient facts to warrant acceleration, and the sentence imposed was excessive. The district court denied the motion and petitioner applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari, Case No. C-84-60. He contended the guilty plea was invalid because the trial court had not determined there was a factual basis underlying the plea and the sentence imposed was excessive. On May 14, 1984, this Court denied the application stating petitioner had not filed an application with the trial court to withdraw his plea of guilty; therefore the proceedings could not be reviewed on appeal.
July 28, 1984, this Court granted a rehearing of the cause inasmuch as the petitioner's attempt to preserve error was thwarted by an ambiguous procedural rule of this Court. That rule states:
Review of the acceleration of a deferred judgment is governed by the procedures for a regular appeal from a misdemeanor or felony conviction or certiorari, whichever is applicable, because the acceleration order leads to formal imposition of judgment and sentence.
22 O.S.1981, Ch. 18, App., Rule 1.2(D)(5) (emphasis added).
As there are several interpretations of this rule, we hereby adopt the following:
1. Regardless of his plea, a defendant who wished to challenge only errors in the acceleration proceeding shall perfect an appeal in accordance with Sections II and III of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
2. A defendant who pled guilty and wishes to withdraw his guilty plea shall appeal pursuant to Section IV of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
3. A defendant who pled guilty and wished both to withdraw the plea of guilty and to challenge the acceleration proceeding shall join the issues and appeal by certiorari pursuant to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wester v. State
...the Informations. This alone is insufficient. Coyle v. State, 706 P.2d at 548. The present case is distinguished from Davis v. State, 704 P.2d 497, 499 (Okla.Crim.App.1985), in that petitioner did not admit his guilt to the acts charged in the Because the trial court failed to make an appro......
-
Brennan v. State, C-85-690
...not utilized here, appellant's pleading guilty to the facts as alleged in the Information was minimally sufficient. See Davis v. State, 704 P.2d 497, 499 (Okl.Cr.1985). See also Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 651 n. 2, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 2260 n. 2, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 After again carefully revie......
-
Gonseth v. State
...would be no final judgment from which to perfect any appeal until the deferment was accelerated. Id. at 403. See also Davis v. State, 704 P.2d 497 (Okl.Cr.1985); Rule 1.2(D)(5)(a), (b) & (c), Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.1991, Ch. 18, App. After some consideration, we have......
-
Whitaker v. State
...standard of review applied in Beihl v. State, 1988 OK CR 213, ¶ 3, 762 P.2d 976, 977. Finally, in Davis v. State, 1985 OK CR 93, ¶ 5, 704 P.2d 497, 499 Petitioner's excessive sentence claim was reviewed and found to be within the statutory limitations for the charged offense. We addressed t......