SONNIER v. STATE
2014 OK CR 13
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Sonnier pled guilty to Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in Tulsa County, with a deferred two-year sentence
- State filed an acceleration application for crimes in a related Tulsa case; Sonnier confessed to acceleration and entered a plea in another case
- Sentencing was deferred to allow entry into the Women in Recovery (WIR) program; completion was not guaranteed
- Sonnier was terminated from WIR; trial court sentenced her to four years (Count I) and one year (Count II), to run concurrently with related case
- Sonnier appealed the acceleration and termination under Rule 1.2(D)(5)(b), challenging due process and separation of powers
- Court held there was no reversible error; WIR is not a statutorily protected diversion program with due process requirements
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Sonnier claims counsel failed to test State's case | State contends counsel was not ineffective under Strickland | No merit; no deficient performance shown |
| Due process for WIR termination | Termination from WIR requires due process hearing like other programs | No right to a judicial due process hearing for WIR termination | No due process right to a judicial hearing; no error |
| Separation of powers | Trial court delegated to WIR authority to set rules/conditions | No separation of powers violation; court authorized to sentence and terminate | No separation of powers violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. State, 48 P.3d 110 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002) (due process when terminated from diversionary programs)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (due process in parole/probation revocation)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (minimal due process requirements for revocation proceedings)
- Tate v. State, 313 P.3d 274 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (relates to due process in WIR/drug- or mental-health-court contexts)
- Alexander v. State, 48 P.3d 110 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002) (due process rights in diversionary programs (already listed above for clarity))
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (reasonableness standard for ineffective assistance)
- Harris v. State, 164 P.3d 1103 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (counsels' performance reviewed under Strickland)