SWANSON v. STATE, 2021 OK CR 2

Swanson pleaded guilty to felony DUI (Dec. 2014) and entered Cleveland County Drug Court under a performance contract: successful completion -> charges dropped; failure -> six years imprisonment (per plea agreement).
In May 2015 Swanson’s misdemeanor plea (possession of marijuana and paraphernalia) was incorporated into the drug court agreement.
The drug court record showed nearly fifty violations over years (sanctions ranging from essays to six months’ DOC incarceration) and multiple positive drug tests and other misconduct.
In March 2019 the State moved to terminate Swanson from drug court, alleging a new offense (residing within 2,000 feet of a school in violation of sex-offender registration rules).
On Oct. 4, 2019 the district court granted termination and sentenced Swanson pursuant to the original drug-court contract; Swanson appealed, arguing (1) abuse of discretion in termination and (2) loss of jurisdiction because the termination motion was filed after the statutory three-year program period.

Issue	Swanson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by terminating Swanson from drug court	Termination was an abuse because the court should have continued treatment or imposed lesser sanctions	Swanson repeatedly violated the contract (including a new offense); termination was within the court’s discretion	No abuse of discretion—termination affirmed (court found ample violations and noncompliance)
Whether the district court lost jurisdiction to terminate and impose the agreed sentence because the State filed its motion after the statutory three-year treatment/supervision period (22 O.S. §471.6(G))	The statute limits active treatment+supervision to ~3 years; filing after that period divested the court of authority to terminate and impose the original sentence	§471.6(G) governs treatment/supervision timing and resource use, not the court’s power to enforce the plea/drug-court contract; no jurisdictional bar	Court rejected the jurisdictional claim and affirmed sentencing under the plea agreement; separate judges dissented and concurred in part on statutory interpretation/notice issues

Lewis v. State, 220 P.3d 1140 (appellate review of drug court termination is for abuse of discretion)
Wallace v. State, 562 P.2d 1175 (violation of a probation/drug‑court condition can warrant termination)
Walker v. State, 780 P.2d 1181 (defining "abuse of discretion" standard)
Ex parte Eaton, 233 P. 781 (1925) (trial court lacks power to enforce judgment after expiration of the term under which it was suspended)
Ex parte King, 266 P. 511 (1928) (applying Eaton principle: court without power after term expired)
Bewley v. State, 742 P.2d 29 (1987) (trial court lost jurisdiction to revoke when application filed after probationary term expired)
State v. Rodriguez, 547 P.2d 974 (1976) (trial court may not accelerate a deferred sentence after the specified period has run)
Nard v. State, 412 P.2d 489 (1965) (statutory time limits can be jurisdictional even if the statute does not use the word "jurisdiction")