Walters v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Walters v. State

1989 OK CR 43, 778 P.2d 483, 1989 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 46, 1989 WL 87947

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 2, 1989

DocketC-87-323

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1989 OK CR 43 (Walters 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

Walters v. State, 1989 OK CR 43, 778 P.2d 483, 1989 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 46, 1989 WL 87947 (Okla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

LANE, Vice Presiding Judge:

Appellant Billy Ray Walters was charged with Robbery by Force and Fear, After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S. 1981, §§ 791, 51) in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CRF-85-540. At the plea hearing held March 7, 1986, the trial court incorrectly advised Appellant, who was represented by counsel, that he was charged with Robbery by Force and Fear and that the range of punishment was not less than five (5) years with no maximum. Appellant then entered his guilty plea. At the sentencing hearing on April 23, 1986, the trial judge apparently realized he had both misstated the range of punishment and ignored the fact that Appellant was charged with the offense “After Conviction of Two or More Felonies.” At this time, he advised Appellant the possible sentence was not less than twenty (20) years with no maximum, due to Appellant’s previous felony convictions. (Sentencing Tr.6). The trial judge then sentenced Appellant to ninety (90) years. The trial judge did not question Appellant as to whether he wished to allow his plea to stand and subsequently denied Appellant’s Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea. Appellant has now petitioned this Court for a Writ of Certiorari.

We find the trial court improperly denied Appellant’s Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea. In King v. State, 553 P.2d 529 (Okl. Cr.1976), this Court expressly stated that prior to accepting a guilty plea the trial court must advise a defendant of the range of punishment for the offense of which the defendant is charged. Id. at 535. When the trial court advised Appellant of the true range of punishment he should have inquired of the Appellant whether he wished to allow his plea of guilty to stand. If the Appellant wished to allow the plea to stand, the court would then be free to state the sentence. On the other hand, if the Appellant stated he wished to withdraw his plea, the court should have allowed the withdrawal and proceeded in a normal manner. Since this was not done, we REVERSE and REMAND this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BRETT, P.J., and PARKS, V.P.J., concur. LUMPKIN, J., dissents.

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

OPINION

LANE, Vice Presiding Judge:

Appellant Billy Ray Walters was charged with Robbery by Force and Fear, After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S. 1981, §§ 791, 51) in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CRF-85-540. At the plea hearing held March 7, 1986, the trial court incorrectly advised Appellant, who was represented by counsel, that he was charged with Robbery by Force and Fear and that the range of punishment was not less than five (5) years with no maximum. Appellant then entered his guilty plea. At the sentencing hearing on April 23, 1986, the trial judge apparently realized he had both misstated the range of punishment and ignored the fact that Appellant was charged with the offense “After Conviction of Two or More Felonies.” At this time, he advised Appellant the possible sentence was not less than twenty (20) years with no maximum, due to Appellant’s previous felony convictions. (Sentencing Tr.6). The trial judge then sentenced Appellant to ninety (90) years. The trial judge did not question Appellant as to whether he wished to allow his plea to stand and subsequently denied Appellant’s Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea. Appellant has now petitioned this Court for a Writ of Certiorari.

We find the trial court improperly denied Appellant’s Application to Withdraw Guilty Plea. In King v. State, 553 P.2d 529 (Okl. Cr.1976), this Court expressly stated that prior to accepting a guilty plea the trial court must advise a defendant of the range of punishment for the offense of which the defendant is charged. Id. at 535. When the trial court advised Appellant of the true range of punishment he should have inquired of the Appellant whether he wished to allow his plea of guilty to stand. If the Appellant wished to allow the plea to stand, the court would then be free to state the sentence. On the other hand, if the Appellant stated he wished to withdraw his plea, the court should have allowed the withdrawal and proceeded in a normal manner. Since this was not done, we REVERSE and REMAND this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BRETT, P.J., and PARKS, V.P.J., concur. LUMPKIN, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1989 OK CR 43, 778 P.2d 483, 1989 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 46, 1989 WL 87947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walters-v-state-oklacrimapp-1989.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack