440 P.3d 64
Okla. Crim. App.2019Background
- Jonas Jorge Conroy-Perez pleaded guilty (Aug 20, 2015) to Harboring a Fugitive; judgment and sentencing deferred for two years with probation and a $40/month District Attorney probation fee.
- State filed application to accelerate deferred sentence (Feb 11, 2016), alleging (1) new felony charges and (2) failure to pay prosecution reimbursement/supervision fees; hearing held May 30, 2017.
- State's evidence: District Attorney witness testified Conroy-Perez paid $80 and owed $880 of the ordered fees.
- Appellant testified he had not worked since a workplace vehicle accident before entry of plea, was on workers’ compensation, needed arm surgery, and could not afford payments.
- Trial court concluded probation was violated and accelerated the deferred judgment to a ten-year sentence with 90 days incarceration and the remainder suspended.
- Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by revoking probation without making findings on Appellant’s ability to pay after Appellant presented evidence that nonpayment was not willful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant was ordered to pay the fees alleged in the application | State: application alleged failure to pay "prosecution reimbursement" fees to DA office | Conroy-Perez: trial papers ordered $40/month probation fee; wording differs from application but obligation was clear | Court: Condition ordered $40/month to DA; appellant had notice; allegation sufficient — Proposition I denied |
| Whether acceleration was improper because court made no ability-to-pay/willfulness findings before revoking for nonpayment | State: proved nonpayment ($880 arrears); court may revoke after review of evidence | Conroy-Perez: presented evidence of inability to work and disability; court needed to find whether failure to pay was willful or whether good-faith efforts existed | Court: State met initial burden of nonpayment; appellant presented evidence that nonpayment may not be willful; trial court erred by not making findings on ability to pay/willfulness — reversal and remand |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to fee-labeling (prosecution reimbursement vs supervision) | Conroy-Perez: counsel should have objected to discrepancy | State: no reversible error in fee characterization; appellant had clear notice of $40/month fee | Court: No deficiency shown because Proposition I lacked merit; ineffective-assistance claim denied |
| Whether ten-year sentence was excessive | Conroy-Perez: sentence excessive given facts and nonwillful nonpayment | State: sentence within court's discretion after revocation | Court: Moot in light of reversal on ability-to-pay issue; proper vehicle for excessive-sentence claim is post-acceleration plea-withdrawal/certiorari relief |
Key Cases Cited
- McCaskey v. State, 781 P.2d 836 (Okla. Crim. App.) (State bears burden to prove probationer failed to make required payments; burden shifts to probationer to show nonpayment was not willful)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (due process requires inquiry into willfulness/ability to pay before imprisoning for nonpayment)
- Winbush v. State, 433 P.3d 1275 (Okla. Crim. App.) (reiterates requirements for proof and judicial findings in nonpayment revocations)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bland v. State, 4 P.3d 702 (Okla. Crim. App.) (discusses ineffective-assistance standards in Oklahoma)