IN RE REVISION OF PORTION OF RULES OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
2017 OK CR 4
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) revised and republished portions of its Rules, specifically Rule 1.2 (Methods of Appeal or Review).
- The revision was prompted to acknowledge the right of appeal recognized in Tate v. State and to clarify conformity with Gonseth v. State.
- The order republished classifications of appeals (regular appeals, certiorari, state/municipality appeals, juvenile/youthful offender appeals, resentencing, expungement jurisdiction, post-conviction, and original proceedings).
- The amended Rule 1.2(D) clarifies procedures for various miscellaneous appeal categories, including parole revocation, bail, judicial disqualification, revocation of suspended sentences, deferred judgment and sentence issues (including acceleration and plea-withdrawal), drug/mental-health court terminations, contempt, detention for non-payment, and prison disciplinary review.
- The Order makes explicit (a) when appeal time commences for deferred judgments and accelerated sentences, (b) the limited scope of review for revocation of suspended sentences and acceleration orders, and (c) the interplay between regular appeals and certiorari for plea validity following deferral/acceleration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 1.2(D) should acknowledge Tate right to appeal | Tate recognizes a right to appeal certain mental-health court terminations and related matters | Court rules should adhere to prior precedents and be clarified to avoid conflict | OCCA revised Rule 1.2(D) to expressly acknowledge Tate and conform to Gonseth |
| Proper procedure and scope for appeals from Orders Deferring Imposition of Judgment and Sentence | Defendants may appeal probation terms and/or plea validity; can pursue separate filings or combined appeals | State may assert timeliness and that failure to appeal plea at time of deferral waives later challenge | Rule permits separate appeals: terms of probation via regular appeal; plea validity via certiorari (Rule 4.1); failure to challenge plea at time of appeal waives later challenge |
| Procedure and scope for appeals after acceleration (imposition of judgment and sentence) | Defendant can challenge acceleration errors by regular appeal; may seek plea withdrawal via certiorari | State asserts acceleration appeal scope limited to validity of acceleration order; plea withdrawal is separate | Acceleration appeals proceed under regular rules (Sections II & III); plea withdrawal after acceleration must be by certiorari; scope limited to acceleration validity |
| Reviewability of revocation of suspended sentence | Defendant contends appeal should include underlying conviction validity | State contends review limited to revocation order; underlying conviction requires separate appeal | OCCA holds revocation appeals use regular appeal procedure but scope limited to validity of revocation; underlying conviction challenge requires separate appeal per regular procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Tate v. State, 313 P.3d 274 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (recognized right to appeal in certain mental-health/termination contexts)
- Gonseth v. State, 871 P.2d 51 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (controls treatment of deferred judgments and acceleration issues)
- Lookingbill v. State, 157 P.3d 130 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (addresses appeals related to deferred judgments and probation terms)
- Hager v. State, 990 P.2d 894 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999) (applies acceleration-appeal principles to drug court termination appeals)