<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/hmonYT-rJ9Y?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
This content was written for Cale Law Office
When looking for the best criminal lawyer, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with Tulsa criminal defense attorney Cale. Attorney Cale will work with you to develop defense strategy plan that you can take with you.
In a 2014 case, the defendant pled guilty to a possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. She received a two-year deferred sentence on both counts and was ordered to have supervision by the Tulsa County district attorney office. The state filed an application to accelerate the sentence based on crimes alleged to been committed by the defendant later. The defendant signed a confession to the application to accelerate admitting that the state to prove the allegations in the application.
Sentencing was passed to allow the defendant to complete the women in recovery program. At a hearing later, the defendant was terminated from the program and sentenced to four years in prison for count one and one year in the county jail for count two. The defendant appealed, raising three issues.
Defendant first argued that the trial court erred in termination teeing her from the women incredibly program without first offering to hold an adversarial evidentiary hearing consistent with due process standards. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. In order to prevail, she would’ve had to show that her attorney’s performance dispute was deficient that she was prejudiced by the attorney’s deficient performance. The attorney’s acts or omissions must been so serious that she was deprived of a fair trial with reliable results. On appeal, a defense counsel’s performance against an objective standard of reasonableness under for failing professional norms will be the standard. The appellate court will not second-guess strategy decisions. In order for the appellate court to reach the defendant’s claims a deficient performance, she miss show that she was prejudiced by counsel’s acts or omissions.
Secondly, the appellate court said the defendant was not deny due process when she was terminated from the program. She did not raise the issue of the trial court level and waived all but plain error. Plain error is actual error that is plain or obvious and that affects the defendant substantial rights affecting the outcome of the trial.
The defendant confessed to the states application. She also entered into applying plane the previous case. In both cases since it was passed for her to try to successfully complete the women in recovery program. In both cases, there was an understanding that the defendant would get a present if she did not complete women in recovery, but the time of each play there was no specific sentence recommendation. Case turns on the nature of the defense participation in the program. The defendant compares the program to truck court, mental health court, probation the revocation hearings, acceleration hearings. He argues that the women in recovery program is like she should be afforded the protection is required on a deferred sentence, including notice of the reasons for termination an opportunity to contest those reasons. The appellate court is held that if defendant who is terminated from test been in a diversionary program is entitled to due process. This includes termination from drug court or mental health court, or acceleration of a deferred sentence.
However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that the comparison is misleading, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The defendant entered a guilty plea confess to the acceleration of her deferred sentence in these cases, she did not receive a deferred sentence in your case. In both cases, the trial court accepted the defendant’s plea of guilty and confession to the acceleration, thereby finding her guilty of the crime charged an allegation supporting the acceleration. The trial court simply pass the sentencing proceedings. The defendant was not put on probation nor was completion of the program a condition of her release. She signed a standard document Stephen Rose conditions of pretrial release in order to receive electronic monitoring through the court serves the system.
In other cases to the conditions of pretrial release pension women in recovery. Electronic monitoring agreement in each case does not state that women in recovery will pay the cost of monitoring. Additionally, the defendant’s confession of acceleration expressly states that she will get a pass to get into women in recovery or sentencing by the court will occur in the program is terminated. Furthermore, despite the defense comparisons, completion of the program is not analogous to drug court or mental health court programs. Drug a mental health courts formally and expressly establish structure judicial intervention processes for treatment of eligible offenders. These programs are based in the District Court’s, which hold regular progress hearings. The reviewing courts must recognize relapses and restarts because the alternative court’s statute provides for this consideration.
Defendant to participate in the program but failed to complete it are terminated by the order of the drug or mental health court judge. In deciding whether is terminated defendant for one of these programs, the trial court must afford at least a minimum two process requirements, including written notice of the violations and disclosure of the evidence. Additionally, there must be a hearing in which the defendant has an opportunity to be heard and confront and cross-examine witnesses before neutral and detached body, with a written statement of findings and conclusions.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the women in recovery program is more like community service or rehabilitation program that a drug court or mental health court. Is not created set friendly by statute. It provides for no specific judicial intervention process, and is not controlled by the trial court. No statutory provisions safeguard or defendant with due process rights connected with liberty interest as a relates to acceptance into her termination from the program. Instead, this program is a private committee service provider program which diverts women from prison, which is accessed through the trial court sensing powers. Unstructured private – partnerships are relatively new to the criminal justice system. Women in recovery began as a private/public expendable partnership with Tulsa County district court system threat foundation and a certified private service provider in the Tulsa area. The program was designed certain women not eligible for some other diversity program an opportunity to avoid incarceration in prison.