*1 presentence no. The investigation report petitioner states that up- functions “at the per end of the mild mental retardation range....” diagnosis The final was that petitioner the suffered from severe emo- problems tional non-psychotic and organic syndrome brain with mild mental retarda- tion. judge find that the trial failed “appropriate interrogation an to conduct Defender, O’Neal, Asst. Public Johnie past the defendant’s and regarding ...
Tulsa, petitioner. State, King v. present mental state....” necessary. response No (Okl.Cr.1976). See also (Okl.Cr.1987); P.2d 157 Burch PARKS, Judge: (Okl.Cr. Coyle v. Jr., addition, Love, en- the trial court’s failure Keith petitioner, Leon right petitioner of his to charge of inform the guilty to the to plea of tered a confrontation, his self-incrimi (21 O.S.Supp.1982, to a Minor Child Injury innocence, Court, nation, of and presumption the 843), County District in Tulsa charge prove to the be the State’s burden CRF-85-1862, Honora- before the No. Case peti resulted yond a reasonable doubt Judge. District Hopper, E. ble Clifford being adequately advised of the not tioner’s negotiations, the District plea Pursuant guilty plea consequences his and of nature of four a sentence Attorney recommended required by King, supra. as imposed by the trial years, which was allowed to withdraw petitioner must be the a motion to timely filed Petitioner court. guilty plea. his was over- guilty plea, which withdraw timely petition filed a Petitioner ruled. foregoing, find the basis of On the August of certiorari. On a writ abused its discretion the trial court directing the an order issued this Court withdraw his allowing petitioner to not hearing transcript of the preparation of the Therefore, of certio- the writ guilty plea. guilty plea, the on the motion to withdraw GRANTED, judgment the rari Septem- reported. On if such and REMANDED REVERSED petitioner filed a counsel for ber views ex- the consistent with proceedings hearing was not response stating that said pressed herein. reported. error, petition- BRETT, In his sole of concurs. mentally incompetent er claims that he was BUSSEY, J., participating. guilty plea.
to enter a He asserts that the appropriate trial court failed to make an
interrogation petitioner of the to determine competent plead guilty.
whether he was addition, the record shows that the trial
judge petitioner the failed to advise
cerning to confront the witnesses STATEN, Appellant, Doyle him, against privilege against self-in- crimination, innocence, presumption the prove and the State’s burden Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE An charges beyond a reasonable doubt. No. F-85-385. plea pro- examination the record of ceeding only shows that the trial court’s of Oklahoma. of Criminal Court question concerning petitioner’s compe- 22, June petitioner was “un- tency was whether the any drugs or medi- der the influence of at time?” Petitioner answered
cation
566
BUSSEY, Judge: appellant, Doyle Staten, was convicted of Driving the crime of Under the Alcohol, Influence of Offense, Second in the District Kay County, Case No. CRF-84-64 and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment (2) years’ with two suspended, appeals. and he
Briefly pertinent stated the facts are that on March appellant, who was vehicle, driving stopped was due to a faulty light. tail stopped officer who stag- observed that gering, spoke slowly and smelled of alco- Appellant hol. was arrested transport- jail ed to the Blackwell breathalyz- where a er test was administered. The test showed a blood alcohol concentration of eleven-hun- (.11). dredths assignment For his first appel lant asserts that the statute under which charged he was O.S.Supp.1983, 11- 902(A)(1) is unconstitutionally vague and recently overbroad. We addressed this identical issue in Wood v. (Okl.Cr. 1986), and held that this stat
ute vague is neither nor unconstitutional. Wood, For the reasons set in forth we find assignment of error meritless. Appellant alleges next denying sup his motion to press convictions that the guilty pleas convictions were the result of and that the record in each case failed to rights show that his constitutional protected. been This Court has consistent ly prior felony held that when convictions pleas on are used to enhance showing an affirmative represented by the defendant was counsel rights, and advised of his before he entered guilty pleas, is essential. Houston v. case, present appellant pled guilty Driving to three crimes of Under the Trewitt, Blackwell, Michael C. Influence of Alcohol Case Nos. CRF-75- lant. 164, CRM-75-179 and T-73-136. The Gen., Turpén, Atty. Michael C. Mary F. clearly represent- record he shows that was Williams, Gen., Atty. Asst. City, by Oklahoma ed counsel at the time that he entered appellee. guilty pleas, pled guilty he and that knowledge of his constitutional full with Moreover,
rights. appellant did not file an MADILL AND BANK TRUST appeal any COMPANY, on of the three convictions Appellee, used enhancement. error lacks merit. George HERRMANN & Buel ap of error his third Lasley, Appellants. *3 argues the trial court erred pellant that 62461, Nos. 62264. appellant testi allowing the to call State re on motion to strike fy at it garding convictions in that vio Oklahoma, against self-incrimination.
lated
Division No. 3.
Initially,
appellant
failed to
note
authority
support
his asser
cite relevant
3,
Feb.
1987.
tion; therefore,
it waived. Wofford
Rehearing Denied March
1987.
State,
ly, this is without
it. urges finally receiving into evidence 5-11,
State’s exhibits numbers the court However,
records convictions.
having previously found that the
victions were admissible enhance is like-
lant’s
wise without merit.
Finding warranting or no error reversal
modification, Judgment and Sentence
AFFIRMED.
BRETT, P.J., concurs.
PARKS, J., specially concurs.
PARKS, Judge, specially con- Presiding
curring: my procedural infirmities I noted
dissenting opinion to Wood v. (Okl.Cr.1986)(Parks,
P.2d 709-10
dissenting), alleged and are have not been According- present in the instant case.
ly, opinion. I concur with