|
|
|
| Deferred Sentences |
|
Nehemiah Martin Hellems v. State,
No. F-2005-784 (Okl.Cr., April 23, 2007) (unpublished order): Deferred Sentences: This case presents a procedural trap for appellate lawyers and trial lawyers alike. Hellems plead no contest to KCSP and False Declaration of Ownership to a Pawnbroker and was given a 3 year deferred sentence. Thereafter, the State moved to accelerate sentencing when Hellems committed another crime (A & B w/Deadly Weapon). The only issued raised on appeal was that the sentence was excessive under facts. However, the Court held that in an appeal of an order accelerating a deferred sentence, the excessive nature of the sentence cannot be considered; rather, the Court may consider only the validity of the acceleration order. Beware! NOTE/RANT: the option for the appellant is to move to withdraw the underlying pleas and proceed with a certiorari appeal. I am always mystified when the Court issues these types of holdings in UNPUBLISHED ORDERS rather than via a published opinion so we will all be made aware of this interpretation of the appellate rules.
|
|
Harold Dante Cole v. State,
No. F-2007-798 (Okl.Cr., August 21, 2008) (unpublished): Deferred Sentences: Cole had a hearing in Garfield County on the State's applications to accelerate his sentences and Judge Franklin walloped him with the max. On appeal, he argued that his sentence was excessive. The Court applied a procedural trap and held that, since Cole had not sought to withdraw his pleas in the trial court, his appellate issues were limited to the validity of the acceleration order and errors in the acceleration proceeding. You might want to familiarize yourselves with this case because, in guilty plea cases that result in acceleration, it may be advisable to move to withdraw the plea.
|
|
|
|
