Elmore v. State, C-79-592
| Decision Date | 20 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. C-79-592,C-79-592 |
| Citation | 624 P.2d 78 |
| Parties | Jackie Ray ELMORE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
JACKIE RAY ELMORE, appellant, was convicted upon his plea of guilty of Manslaughter in the First Degree in Pittsburg County District Court, Case No. CRF-78-291, and punishment was fixed at eight (8) years imprisonment. He seeks to appeal by petition for writ of certiorari filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. In an opinion by BUSSEY, J., with BRETT, P. J., and CORNISH, J., concurring, the petition is denied and the judgment and sentence affirmed.
Thomas B. Webb, McAlester, for appellant.
No appearance by appellee.
Appellant, Jackie Ray Elmore, was charged in Pittsburg County District Court, Case No. CRF-78-291, with the crime of Murder in the First Degree. He was bound over by the magistrate following a preliminary hearing. On the 18th day of June, 1979, appellant appeared in court with court appointed counsel and entered a plea of guilty to a reduced charge of Manslaughter in the First Degree, and was sentenced to eight (8) years imprisonment, pursuant to a plea bargain. On the 28th day of June, 1979, the application was denied and formal sentence was imposed. Thereafter, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in this Court.
Appellant alleges in support of the petition, and so testified at the hearing on the application to withdraw plea of guilty, that he was under such pressure and stress due to conflicting advice from counsel and unspecified family members, and others interested in the outcome of the lawsuit, that he was not acting of his own free will. Moreover, he contends that he was operating under the misapprehension that he could withdraw his plea of guilty upon the asking at anytime within ten (10) days following judgment and sentence. In addition, appellant contends that although he was present at the premises when the homicide underlying the charge occurred, he has learned, since the guilty plea was entered, facts which lead him to believe that he is not guilty, although they are so self-incriminatory that he could not tell them to the court.
On the record before us, we must deny the petition. Appellant does not allege, nor does it appear, that the trial court failed in any respect to comply with guilty plea acceptance procedures mandated by this Court. The record affirmatively reflects that the trial judge was sensitive to ensure a knowing and voluntary plea, and on the face of the record, the plea appears without doubt to have been voluntarily entered.
Appellant cites the following excerpt from the transcript of the plea proceeding to support his contention that he was confused:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perdue v. Crow
...allow him to withdraw the plea based on this issue, as Perdue did not meet his burden in this case. Elmore v. State, 1981 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, 624 P.2d 78, 80; see Hatch v. State, 1996 OK CR ¶ 57, 924 P.2d 284, 296 (presumption of correctness of proceedings); also see Wynn v. Page, 1965 OK CR 153,......
-
Sweet v. Hamilton
...Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. See Clayton v. Jones, 700 F.3d 435, 441 (10th Cir. 2012) (discussing Oklahoma law); Elmore v. State, 624 P.2d 78, 80 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981) (noting that a defendant must file a motion to withdraw a guilty plea within 10 days of the sentencing hearing). B......
-
Vuletich v. State
...Appellant argues that it was an abuse of discretion to allow a plea withdrawal without a showing of necessity. Cf. Elmore v. State, 624 P.2d 78 (Okl.Cr.1981). However, as this Court stated in Dodson v. Page, 461 P.2d 957, 959-60 The law favors a trial on the merits by a jury, and all courts......
-
O'Dell v. State
...is within the sound discretion of the trial court whether to grant or deny an application to withdraw the plea. See e.g., Elmore v. State, 624 P.2d 78 (Okl.Cr.1981); Darnell v. State, 623 P.2d 617 Furthermore, this Court indeed has before it not only the written petition to plead guilty in ......