Grimes v. State
2011 OK CR 16
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Grimes pled guilty to Possession of a Controlled Substance within 2,000 feet of a park with intent to distribute; sentencing postponed to allow RID program participation, but ineligible and plea withdrawn.
- June 9, 2008: Grimes pled guilty again and was sentenced to five years with all but one year suspended; credit for time served awarded.
- June 24, 2009: State filed Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence based on new offenses (Domestic Abuse—Assault and Battery).
- July 31, 2009: State filed Second Amended Application to Revoke; August 13, 2009 Grimes appeared with counsel and waived a jury trial on grounds related to the revocation petitions.
- September 28, 2009: District Court revoked the remaining four years of Grimes' suspended sentence and ordered incarceration costs; final order appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation hearing timing violated the 20-day rule | Grimes argues lack of jurisdiction due to failure to hold within 20 days without valid waiver | State contends waiver and tolling validly extended timing | Time tolled/waived; jurisdiction proper; revocation affirmed |
| Whether revocation extended Grimes' sentence beyond the suspended term | Grimes contends credit/time served shortened the term | State argues no shortening of unexecuted portion; Hemphill controls | Original calendar year controls; no abuse in revocation; no extension |
| Whether incarceration costs imposed in revocation were improper | Costs constitute additional punishment outside revocation | Costs are mandatory administrative under 22 O.S.Supp.2008, § 979a(A) | Costs mandatory; court declines to address scope in revocation appeal |
| Whether clerical/other fees were improperly taxed | Multiple fees, including court reporter fees, improper | Costs are administrative and not properly reviewed in revocation appeal | Issue outside scope of revocation appeal; affirmed revocation irrespective of fees |
| Whether nunc pro tunc correction of the revocation order was appropriate | Grimes seeks nunc pro tunc to remove erroneous finding of Domestic Abuse | State concedes no objection but says not proper in revocation appeal | Denied; extraordinary relief reserved for District Court; revocation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Caswell, 2001 OK CR 29, 34 P.3d 647 (OK Crim. App. 2001) (jurisdiction/timing for revocation hearings)
- Baker v. State, 1996 OK CR 49, 927 P.2d 577 (OK Crim. App. 1996) (timeliness and waivers in revocation proceedings)
- McCauley v. State, 1991 OK CR 69, 814 P.2d 157 (OK Crim. App. 1991) (probation revocation framework)
- Yates v. State, OK CR 179, 761 P.2d 878 (OK Crim. App. 1987) (waiver/delay in revocation hearings)
- Hemphill v. State, 1998 OK CR 7, 954 P.2d 148 (OK Crim. App. 1998) (suspended sentence time frame and authority to revoke)
- Harris v. State, 1989 OK CR 10, 772 P.2d 1329 (OK Crim. App. 1989) (precedent on credit affecting suspended sentence duration)
- Robinson v. State, 1991 OK CR 44, 809 P.2d 1320 (OK Crim. App. 1991) (incarceration costs in revocation context)
- Burnham v. State, 2002 OK CR 6, 43 P.3d 387 (OK Crim. App. 2002) (costs and consequences of revocation proceedings)
- Degraffenreid v. State, 1979 OK CR 88, 599 P.2d 1107 (OK Crim. App. 1979) (authority to revoke within term of sentence)
- Crowels v. State, 1984 OK CR 29, 675 P.2d 451 (OK Crim. App. 1984) (timing of revocation hearings post filing)