SONNIER v. STATE, 334 P.3d 948

Sonnier pled guilty to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in CF-2011-2148 with a two-year deferred sentence, concurrent on both counts.
The State filed an application to accelerate the deferred sentence based on conduct in CF-2012-1757 and Sonnier confessed to acceleration.
Sentencing was deferred to allow participation in the Women in Recovery (WIR) program.
Sonnier was terminated from WIR on August 1, 2013 and thereafter sentenced to four years (Count I) and one year (Count II), to run concurrently with CF-2012-1757.
The appeal challenges the acceleration of the deferred sentences under Rule 1.2(D)(5)(b), asserting issues related to ineffective assistance, due process in WIR termination, and separation of powers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of plea counsel	Sonnier argues counsel failed to adversarially test State’s case	State contends no deficient performance by counsel	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown
Due process on WIR termination	Sonnier asserts she was entitled to a hearing on WIR termination	WIR termination does not require judicial hearing	No right to a judicial due process hearing; termination proper and harmless
Separation of powers and WIR authority	WIR/Private provider arrangement improperly encroaches on judicial power	Trial court authorized participation and sentencing after WIR action; no unconstitutional delegation	No separation of powers violation; trial court within statutory authority

Alexander v. State, 48 P.3d 110 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002) (due process protections in probation related contexts and relapses discussed)
Tate v. State, 313 P.3d 274 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (due process when terminating diversionary programs; plain error standard discussed)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process in revocation proceedings; general standards cited)