Pickens v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Pickens v. State

2007 OK CR 18, 158 P.3d 482, 2007 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 18, 2007 WL 1300777

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 4, 2007

DocketC-2006-828

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 2007 OK CR 18 (Pickens 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

Pickens v. State, 2007 OK CR 18, 158 P.3d 482, 2007 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 18, 2007 WL 1300777 (Okla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI

CHAPEL, Judge.

T1 Acea Lavon Pickens entered a guilty plea to Counts I, II, and III: Rape in the First Degree by Instrumentation in violation of 21 0.8.2001, $ 1114(A)(5); and Count IV: Lewd Molestation in violation of 21 O.S. Supp.2005, § 1123 in the District Court of Carter County, Case No. CF-2006-109. On June 28, 2006, the Honorable Thomas S. Walker sentenced Pickens to serve the following sentences consecutively: Counts I, II, and III: five (5) years imprisonment for each count; and Count IV: one (1) year imprisonment. On July 7, 2006, Pickens timely filed an Application to Withdraw Plea. After a hearing on July 21, 2006, the District Court denied Pickens's Application. On August 2, 2006, Pickens timely appealed, and filed his Petition for Certiorari on August 15, 2006. The Court requested a response from the State on Proposition I, which was filed on January 11, 2007.

T2 In Proposition I, Pickens claims his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Pick ens would have to serve 85% of each sentence before being eligible to be considered for parole (the 85% Rule)¹ Pickens argues the trial court erred in not notifying him of this provision before he entered his pleas, and claims that in consequence his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. This Court has held that a defendant has a right to know whether his sentences are subject to the 85% Rule when entering a negotiated plea.² We conclude that a defendant has a right to be informed of the 85% Rule when entering a plea, and make no distinetion between a negotiated sentence and a blind plea to the trial court. The trial court's failure to advise Pickens of the 85% Rule rendered his plea involuntary. Pickens must be allowed to withdraw his pleas.

T3 Pickens also claims that he was not informed of the requirement that he register as a sex offender, and that counsel was ineffective at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. Given our resolution of the 85% Rule issue, we do not reach these claims. The ineffective assistance claim is moot because we grant relief on other grounds. The claim regarding the sex offender requirement turns on whether Pick-ens's plea was voluntary and knowing. If Pickens is allowed to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial, this issue is moot.

Decision

{4 The Application for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is hereby VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 83.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, ChL.18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

LUMPKIN, P.J.: dissents. C. JOHNSON, V.P.J., A. JOHNSON and LEWIS, JJ.: coneur.

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

OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI

CHAPEL, Judge.

T1 Acea Lavon Pickens entered a guilty plea to Counts I, II, and III: Rape in the First Degree by Instrumentation in violation of 21 0.8.2001, $ 1114(A)(5); and Count IV: Lewd Molestation in violation of 21 O.S. Supp.2005, § 1123 in the District Court of Carter County, Case No. CF-2006-109. On June 28, 2006, the Honorable Thomas S. Walker sentenced Pickens to serve the following sentences consecutively: Counts I, II, and III: five (5) years imprisonment for each count; and Count IV: one (1) year imprisonment. On July 7, 2006, Pickens timely filed an Application to Withdraw Plea. After a hearing on July 21, 2006, the District Court denied Pickens's Application. On August 2, 2006, Pickens timely appealed, and filed his Petition for Certiorari on August 15, 2006. The Court requested a response from the State on Proposition I, which was filed on January 11, 2007.

T2 In Proposition I, Pickens claims his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Pick ens would have to serve 85% of each sentence before being eligible to be considered for parole (the 85% Rule)¹ Pickens argues the trial court erred in not notifying him of this provision before he entered his pleas, and claims that in consequence his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. This Court has held that a defendant has a right to know whether his sentences are subject to the 85% Rule when entering a negotiated plea.² We conclude that a defendant has a right to be informed of the 85% Rule when entering a plea, and make no distinetion between a negotiated sentence and a blind plea to the trial court. The trial court's failure to advise Pickens of the 85% Rule rendered his plea involuntary. Pickens must be allowed to withdraw his pleas.

T3 Pickens also claims that he was not informed of the requirement that he register as a sex offender, and that counsel was ineffective at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his pleas. Given our resolution of the 85% Rule issue, we do not reach these claims. The ineffective assistance claim is moot because we grant relief on other grounds. The claim regarding the sex offender requirement turns on whether Pick-ens's plea was voluntary and knowing. If Pickens is allowed to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial, this issue is moot.

Decision

{4 The Application for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is hereby VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 83.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, ChL.18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

LUMPKIN, P.J.: dissents. C. JOHNSON, V.P.J., A. JOHNSON and LEWIS, JJ.: coneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2007 OK CR 18, 158 P.3d 482, 2007 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 18, 2007 WL 1300777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickens-v-state-oklacrimapp-2007.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack