Gill v. State, C--73--463
| Decision Date | 10 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. C--73--463,C--73--463 |
| Parties | Duriel Richard GILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Duriel Richard Gill, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, to the offense of Obtaining a Thing of Value by Means and Use of a False and Bogus Check, Case No. CRF-- 72--513. Judgment and sentence was deferred for a period of two (2) years. Thereafter, the State filed an Application to Accelerate Sentencing, and upon hearing same and after due notice, defendant was sentenced to a term of one (1) year in the state penitentiary. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court by writ of certiorari.
The application for acceleration alleges that the defendant violated the terms of his deferred sentence by failing to pay court costs and make restitution as required by the conditions of probation prescribed by the trial court. Title 22 O.S.1971, § 991c states in part as follows:
In the instant case the records reflects that the defendant and his counsel signed an instrument entitled 'Deferred Sentence--Plea of Guilty: Summary of Facts' at the time the trial court entered the deferred sentence. Said document ordered the defendant to pay court costs in the amount of Twenty-seven Dollars ($27.00) on or before the 12th day of June, 1972, and further stated that the defendant was not to violate any city, state or federal laws.
Upon a hearing on said application, the defendant took the stand in his own behalf and admitted that he had failed to pay the court costs on or before the 12th day of June, 1972, and failed to make full restitution on or before said date as ordered by the trial court. The defendant further admitted without objection by defense counsel that on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hagar v. State
...judgment have been violated is to enter judgment and impose sentence. See Kern v. State, 521 P.2d 412, 415 (Okl.Cr.1974); Gill v. State, 521 P.2d 407, 408 (Okl.Cr.1974). Violations of conditions of a deferred sentence need only be shown by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See Robinson v. ......
-
Edwards v. State
...proceeding. See e.g. Evans v. State, 609 P.2d 784, 785 (Okl.Cr.1980); Beller v. State, 597 P.2d 338 (Okl.Cr.1979); Gill v. State, 521 P.2d 407 (Okl.Cr.1974). Therefore, the true issue raised is whether there was evidence presented which tended to show, by a preponderance of that evidence, t......
-
Hunter v. State
...part of the trial court. Where no abuse of discretion is shown, this Court will not disturb the trial court's decision. Gill v. State, 521 P.2d 407 (Okl. Cr. 1974). The record is free of any error which would justify reversal. The imposition of the judgment and sentence is hereby affirmed. ......