JIMENEZ v. STATE
Case Number: C-2023-951
Decided: 12/05/2024
LUIS JIMENEZ, Petitioner v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent
Cite as:
SUMMARY OPINION DENYING CERTIORARI
HUDSON, JUDGE:
¶1 On January 9, 2023, Petitioner, Luis Jimenez, entered a semi-blind plea of no contest in the District Court of Texas County, Case No. CF-2022-12, to Count 6: First Degree Rape, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1114
¶2 On March 22, 2023, the matter came on for sentencing. After hearing the victim's prepared victim impact statement, and argument from both parties, Judge Parsley sentenced Jimenez to thirty-five years imprisonment, with all but the first twenty years suspended, plus a $1,000.00 fine. The trial court further imposed various costs and fees. Jimenez must serve 85% of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1
¶3 On March 30, 2023, Jimenez, through plea counsel, Nathan McCaffrey, filed a timely application to withdraw his plea.
¶4 Jimenez now seeks a writ of certiorari raising two propositions of error each complaining of ineffective assistance of plea counsel. After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and Jimenez's brief, we find that no relief is required under the law and evidence. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.
¶5 Our review on certiorari is limited to two inquiries: (1) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary; and (2) whether the district court accepting the plea had jurisdiction. Lewis v. State,
¶6 The standard for determining the validity of a plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among alternative courses of action open to the defendant. North Carolina v. Alford,
¶7 We review Petitioner's two propositions of error together as he complains in each that he was denied the effective assistance of plea counsel. In Proposition I, Petitioner specifically argues plea counsel acted unreasonably when he failed to (1) effectively go through the plea paperwork with Petitioner; (2) confirm if Petitioner wanted a presentence investigation; (3) investigate any of the facts; and (4) present "any sort of mitigation" at the sentencing hearing. In Proposition II, Petitioner "incorporate[s] the facts and argument in Proposition I" and broadly argues that plea counsel failed to sufficiently provide Petitioner with a "full and accurate understanding of his options in the proceedings."
¶8 To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Petitioner must show both that counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington,
¶9 First, although the Plea of Guilty Summary of Facts form as completed has some notable deficiencies, the total record, including the plea colloquy and the testimony at the motion to withdraw hearing, shows Petitioner entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. That Petitioner was not specifically asked whether he wanted a presentence investigation and report alone does not affect the validity of his plea. Sprigner v. State,
¶10 Second, Title 22, Section 982 was complied with in this case. Section 982 no longer mandates that a presentence investigation be conducted for any offender pleading guilty or no contest to a violent felony "as part of or in exchange for a plea agreement." 22 O.S.Supp.2019, § 982may have a presentence investigation made . . . on each person charged with a violent felony offense and entering a plea . . . as part of or in exchange for a plea agreement." (emphasis added)). Compare 22 O.S.Supp.2017, § 982shall have a presentence investigation made . . . on each person charged with a violent felony offense and entering a plea . . . as part of or in exchange for a plea agreement." (emphasis added)). Thus, unless the district attorney directs that a presentence investigation be prepared pursuant to § 982(E), the preparation of a presentence investigation is entirely discretionary with the trial court under current Oklahoma law. 22 O.S.Supp.2019, § 982
¶11 Here, even though Petitioner's plea is referred to as a "semi-blind plea agreement" or a "partial plea agreement," the record clearly shows that his plea of no contest was entered "in exchange" for the dismissal of eleven felony counts, agreed to sentencing parameters for the remaining Count 6 charge, and a 60-day delay in sentencing. A presentence investigation was thus not mandated. The State specifically waived its right to obtain a presentence investigation; plea counsel did not ask that one be prepared; and Judge Parsley announced that he would not order one. Given the total circumstances of this case, including the parties' partial plea agreement, plea counsel's decision not to request a presentence investigation was a reasonable strategic choice.
¶12 Moreover, it is purely speculative whether the trial court would have granted a request by Petitioner for a presentence investigation, and if it had done so, whether the presentence report made would have contained mitigating information that would have resulted in the imposition of a lesser sentence. See Fulgham v. State,
¶13 Third and fourth, Petitioner's claims that plea counsel failed to sufficiently investigate the facts of this case and to present mitigation evidence at the sentencing hearing are each based on "assumptions and speculations" that are insufficient to show ineffective assistance of counsel. Fulgham,
¶14 Finally, we reject Petitioner's broad claim that he entered his plea "without the required full and accurate understanding of his options" due to plea counsel's deficient performance. The total record shows that Petitioner was fully aware of the direct, material consequences of entering his semi-blind no contest plea. See Brady,
¶15 The record of the withdrawal hearing shows, at bottom, that Petitioner was dissatisfied with the sentence imposed. Petitioner's resulting dissatisfaction with his sentence, however, is not a sufficient ground for withdrawal of his plea. Champion,
¶16 Under the total circumstances presented here, Petitioner fails to show Judge Parsley's denial of the motion to withdraw was an abuse of discretion. See Pullen v. State,
DECISION
¶17 The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2024), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.
AN APPEAL FROM
THE DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS COUNTY
THE HONORABLE JON K. PARSLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE
|
APPEARANCES BELOW NATHAN McCAFFREY |
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL RYAN K. LOEWENSTERN |
|
RYAN K. LOEWENSTERN BUDDY LEACH |
NO RESPONSE FROM THE STATE |
OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.
ROWLAND, P.J.: CONCUR
MUSSEMAN, V.P.J: CONCUR IN RESULT
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR
FOOTNOTES