Case Name: George Patrick COYLE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1985-09-25
Citations: 706 P.2d 547
Docket Number: No. C-84-222
Parties: George Patrick COYLE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.
Judges: BRETT, J., specially concurs.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 706
Pages: 547–549

Head Matter:
George Patrick COYLE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.
No. C-84-222.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Sept. 25, 1985.
Elaine Meek, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for petitioner.
No appearance by respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
PARKS, Presiding Judge:
The petitioner, George Patrick Coyle, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of Robbery by Force and Fear, First Degree, in the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma, Case No. CRF-83-773. The guilty plea was entered without a recommendation from the District Attorney. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced the petitioner to fifteen (15) years' in prison. Petitioner filed a timely application to withdraw his plea of guilty. Subsequent to the evidentiary hearing on petitioner's application, the trial court denied petitioner's request. Petitioner has filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari in the form and within the time allowed. We assume jurisdiction.
Petitioner raises one issue in his appeal. He alleges the trial court failed to follow the minimum requirements of King v. State, 553 P.2d 529 (Okls.Cr.1976), therefore rendering as fundamentally defective the acceptance of his plea of guilty. We agree.
The alleged facts underlying the charge filed against the petitioner will not be recited, as they are irrelevant to a disposition of this case. An examination of the record made at the hearing on petitioner's offer to plead guilty reveals that two of the three major requirements as set forth in King were not met. The trial judge made the requisite judicial determination of the petitioner's competency by asking defense counsel if he thought petitioner was competent, and by asking the petitioner his name, age and if he thought himself competent. This brief dialogue falls short of satisfying the requirement of an "appropriate interrogation . regarding the defendant's past and present mental state .," King v. State, supra at 534-1, A. The other deficiency was the trial court's failure to determine "... from the defendant that there was a factual basis for the plea of guilty .," King v. State, supra at 535 — III, B-l. The trial court accepted petitioner's guilty plea to the charge as set out in the Information, and then asked if the State wanted to say anything before judgment and sentence, since "... the court knows very little, if anything, about this case."
This Court will not dictate to the district judges of this State how to conduct hearings on pleas of guilty to satisfy the mandate of King. The guidelines of King were carefully prepared to aid the trial courts without interfering in their judicial function. Many of the judicial districts in this State are to be commended for their efforts in devising procedures that meet these requirements. One method is the practice of asking the defendant to state in his or her own words what happened. Another method that has been utilized is a form that has been worked up entitled "Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty," which calls for the signature of the defendant, and it is recommended that the defendant complete this form in his own hand writing. This latter method provides a good record to supplement the transcript of the hearing. It also provides some insight into the defendant's competency for this Court to examine on review.
In this case, the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea, and for this reason, the conviction will be REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.
BRETT, J., specially concurs.
Bussey, J., dissents.