Tate v. State
313 P.3d 274
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Petitioner Sharing Tate pled guilty to Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug (Methamphetamine) and Unlawfully Bringing Contraband into County Jail in 2007; sentences run concurrently with ten years (three suspended) on Count I and three years on Count II.
- State filed a Motion to Revoke Suspended Sentence in 2010 for probation violations including drug use, address change, and new charges; amended with new felony allegations.
- Petitioner was charged in 2010 in CF-2010-211 with Obtaining Merchandise by False Pretense and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property; she entered a blind no-contest plea in 2010.
- Petitioner sought Mental Health Court (MHC) placement; on November 22, 2010 the court approved her enrollment and delayed sentencing in CF-2010-211 and revocation in CRF-2006-894 pending MHC completion.
- In June 2012 the State sought termination from MHC for improper contacts, absconding, and prior sanctions; the District Court terminated her from MHC and revoked five years of suspended sentence in CRF-2006-894 and sentenced in CF-2010-211.
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea in CF-2010-211; the District Court denied; this Court affirmed termination from MHC and denied withdrawal challenge, while certiorari review was preserved for the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to appeal termination from mental health court | Tate argues she has a right to appeal MHC termination. | State contends no right to certiorari; but to appeal termination under appropriate rules. | Court recognizes a right to appeal termination from MHC (extends Hagar). |
| Adequacy of record stating grounds for termination | Record failed to state explicit grounds for termination. | Record sufficiently apprised Tate of grounds; due process satisfied. | Notplain error; grounds sufficiently apprised. |
| Effectiveness of counsel on motion to withdraw plea | Counsel failed to present legitimate grounds for withdrawal. | Inadequate grounds not demonstrated; no deficiency shown. | No ineffective assistance; proposition denied. |
| Whether relapses/restarts must be recognized in mental health court | Relapses/restates required by Act to be recognized. | Anna MeBride Act does not require relapses/restarts in MH Court. | Relapses/restarts not mandated by statute; not constitutional requirement; abuse of discretion standard applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagar v. State, 990 P.2d 894 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999) (right to appeal termination from diversionary programs; due process in revocation proceedings)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (minimum due process for parole revocation; not inflexible structure)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1973) (due process guarantees apply to probation revocation)
- Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (U.S. 1985) (written memorandum/transcript can satisfy due process)
- Burnham v. State, 48 P.3d 387 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002) (review procedure for certiorari vs. petition in error in revocation context)