Stoner v. State, O-77-32
| Decision Date | 22 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. O-77-32,O-77-32 |
| Parties | Ricky STONER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Ricky Stoner, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, appeals from a decision of the Oklahoma County District Court revoking his suspended sentence. The record shows that on October 3, 1975, the defendant pled guilty to Second Degree Burglary in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF-75-3035. He received a two (2) year suspended sentence for this conviction.
On April 20, 1976, after a jury trial the defendant was convicted in the Cleveland County District Court for the crime of Robbery with Firearms, Case No. CRF-76-36, and subsequently on May 25, 1976, was sentenced to fifteen (15) years in prison.
Thereafter, on May 5, 1976, the Oklahoma County District Attorney filed an application to revoke the defendant's suspended sentence in Case No. CRF-75-3035. A hearing was held in the Oklahoma County District Court on July 15, 1976, and at the conclusion of this hearing, the Honorable Harold C. Theus granted the State's application to revoke. From this order, the defendant has perfected a timely appeal.
For his first assignment of error, the defendant alleges that the trial court's order of revocation was an abuse of discretion because it was based on insufficient evidence to show the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. At the revocation hearing the defendant admitted having been convicted of the offense of Robbery with Firearms in Cleveland County, Case No. CRF-76-36 subsequent to receiving his suspended sentence in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF-75-3035. We note that at the time of the revocation hearing the six month time period for appealing the Cleveland County conviction had not expired.
Kern v. State, Okl.Cr., 521 P.2d 412 (1974), is cited by the defendant for the proposition that it is error for a trial court to revoke a suspended sentence, based solely upon a subsequent conviction, when that conviction has not become final. This is a correct statement of the law. In the instant case, after thoroughly searching our records, we have been unable to find any record of appeal in this Court filed by the defendant from his Cleveland County conviction. However, the defendant's Cleveland County Appearance Docket does show that on May 28, 1976, his attorney filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal and a Designation of Record in the District Court. This was done within the ten (10) day limit prescribed by Rule 2.7(A) of this Court and preserved the defendant's right to appeal. Thereafter, the defendant had six (6)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchinson v. State
...three intermediate appellate courts have taken a contrary view. See Ledee v. State, 342 So.2d 100 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); Stoner v. State, 566 P.2d 142 (Okla.Crim.1977); Long v. State, 590 S.W.2d 138 (Tex.Crim.1979). We note, however, that Ledee was recently disavowed by another panel of th......
-
People v. Avery
...114 Cal.Rptr. 365.) Finally, citing authorities from other states (e.g., Ledee v. State (Fla.App.1977) 342 So.2d 100; Stoner v. State (Okla.Cir.1977) 566 P.2d 142, 143; Harris v. State (1960) 169 Tex.Crim. 71, 331 S.W.2d 941), appellant contends the same rule should be applied to probation ......
-
Pickens v. State, 0-87-561
...requirements mandated by Morrissey, Gagnon and this Court except as they pertain to a preliminary hearing. Relying on Stoner v. State, 566 P.2d 142 (Okl.Cr.1977), Appellant next argues his subsequent judgment and sentence can not be used as a basis to revoke his suspended sentence because t......
-
Hutchinson v. State, 231
...has been appealed and thus is not yet final, may not serve as the sole basis for finding a violation of probation, citing Stoner v. State, 566 P.2d 142 (Okl.Cr.1977), and Harris v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 71, 331 S.W.2d 941 (1960), as well as State ex rel. Roberts v. Cochran, 140 So.2d 597, 59......