Patterson v. State, M-86-329
| Decision Date | 23 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. M-86-329,M-86-329 |
| Parties | Willie R. PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The appellant, Willie R. Patterson, entered a plea of guilty, on October, 30, 1985, in the District Court of Comanche County to the crime of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor in Case No. CRM-85-74 and was sentenced to serve a term of one (1) year in the County Jail with all but ninety (90) days suspended, plus restitution of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800) and ordered to attend meetings at the Taliaferro Mental Health Center (T.M.H.C.). On December 3, 1985, the State filed an Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence alleging that appellant did not pay restitution and did not attend the treatment meetings. At the revocation hearing on December 18, 1985, appellant stipulated to the fact that restitution had not been paid as ordered by the court but disputed his failure to attend the meetings. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the remainder of appellant's sentence and ordered appellant to pay the restitution on or before the date of his release from custody.
For his first assignment of error appellant asserts that the trial court erred in revoking his suspended sentence because there was insufficient evidence of any violations of the terms of his probation except for non-payment of restitution. We disagree. This Court has repeatedly held that violations of the conditions of a suspended sentence need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Caudill v. State, 637 P.2d 1264 (Okl.Cr.1981). As previously stated, appellant stipulated that he never made any restitution payments, and he never made any attempt to explain this failure. Additionally, Mr. Glen Mayes, appellant's counselor at T.M.H.C., testified that appellant attended the first meeting, on November 19, 1985, but did not attend the next four (4) meetings, and then attended the meeting on December 5, 1985, after the State filed the revocation application. The court had before it competent evidence which was sufficient to justify the revocation, and therefore this assignment of error is without merit.
Next, appellant contends that since the State did not prove he deliberately failed to make restitution, his suspended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winbush v. State
...this Court found that the State is not required to prove that the defendant deliberately failed to pay restitution. Patterson v. State , 1987 OK CR 255, 745 P.2d 1198.3 The Supreme Court notes that if there is proof the probationer has willfully refused to pay the fine or restitution when h......
-
Winbush v. State
...this Court found that the State is not required to prove that the defendant deliberately failed to pay restitution. Patterson v. State, 1987 OK CR 255, 745 P.2d 1198. 3. The Supreme Court notes that if there is proof the probationer has willfully refused to pay the fine or restitution when ......
-
Graff v. Aberdeen Enters., II, Inc.
...at 5); See Tilden v. State, 306 P.3d 554, 556 (Okl.Cr. 2013); McCaskey v. State, 781 P.2d 836, 837 (Okl.Cr. 1989); Patterson v. State, 745 P.2d 1198, 1199 (Okl.Cr. 1987). Prior to issuance of a bench warrant a court need only review its own records - of which it may take judicial notice - t......
-
Tilden v. State
...that the defendant has made some good faith effort to make payments. McCaskey v. State, 1989 OK CR 63, ¶ 4, 781 P.2d 836, 837;Patterson v. State, 1987 OK CR 255, ¶ 3, 745 P.2d 1198, 1199. The issue here is Tilden's failure to report and his failure to pay fees. He argues that his intervenin......