Hancock v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Hancock v. State

1972 OK CR 210, 500 P.2d 1079, 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 602

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 30, 1972

DocketNo. A-17447

StatusPublished

This text of 1972 OK CR 210 (Hancock v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hancock v. State, 1972 OK CR 210, 500 P.2d 1079, 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 602 (Okla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Appellant, Roy Lee Hancock, hereinafter . referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma, to the offense of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and received a five-year suspended sentence on November 4, 1969. Said suspended sentence was ordered revoked on November 16, 1971, and from said order of revocation, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Defendant asserts three propositions, all of which contain similar assertions that the judgment and sentence does not state any court-imposed conditions of the suspension but provides that it “shall be and is sus[1080]*1080pended pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Corrections Act of 1967 and pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma.” Defendant cites In Re Collyar, Okl.Cr., 476 P.2d 354, wherein this Court held that the trial court cannot delegate its responsibility to set the terms and conditions of suspension to the Department of Corrections. In the instant case, the Attorney General has supplemented the record to include the minute of the trial Court which reflects that “for and during good behavior.” The evidence at the revocation hearing adduced that the defendant entered pleas of guilty subsequent to receiving the suspended sentence to the offenses of Public Drunk and Breach of Peace. In Hayes v. State, Old. Cr., 497 F.2d 1093, Judge Simms stated: “ * * * [I]t is well-settled law in the State of Oklahoma that the conviction of a crime is contrary to a condition of ‘good behavior’ insofar as the condition of a suspended sentence is concerned. * * *”

The Order revoking the suspended sentence is accordingly affirmed.

SIMMS, and BRETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Appellant, Roy Lee Hancock, hereinafter . referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma, to the offense of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and received a five-year suspended sentence on November 4, 1969. Said suspended sentence was ordered revoked on November 16, 1971, and from said order of revocation, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Defendant asserts three propositions, all of which contain similar assertions that the judgment and sentence does not state any court-imposed conditions of the suspension but provides that it “shall be and is sus[1080]*1080pended pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Corrections Act of 1967 and pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma.” Defendant cites In Re Collyar, Okl.Cr., 476 P.2d 354, wherein this Court held that the trial court cannot delegate its responsibility to set the terms and conditions of suspension to the Department of Corrections. In the instant case, the Attorney General has supplemented the record to include the minute of the trial Court which reflects that “for and during good behavior.” The evidence at the revocation hearing adduced that the defendant entered pleas of guilty subsequent to receiving the suspended sentence to the offenses of Public Drunk and Breach of Peace. In Hayes v. State, Old. Cr., 497 F.2d 1093, Judge Simms stated: “ * * * [I]t is well-settled law in the State of Oklahoma that the conviction of a crime is contrary to a condition of ‘good behavior’ insofar as the condition of a suspended sentence is concerned. * * *”

The Order revoking the suspended sentence is accordingly affirmed.

SIMMS, and BRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1972 OK CR 210, 500 P.2d 1079, 1972 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-v-state-oklacrimapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack