Opinion ID: 3062116
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeline of events

Text: To explain our conclusion that O’Neal and Sharp were not similarly situated for the purposes of Griffith, we set out the timeline of relevant OCCA decisions regarding the 85% Rule, as well as the relevant motions in O’Neal’s and Sharp’s respective cases. On February 22, 2006, in Anderson v. State, 130 P.3d 273 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006), the OCCA first held that Oklahoma juries must be instructed on the effect and policy of the 85% Rule when a defendant is subject to that Rule, id. at 282, in light of the state’s “truth in sentencing” legislation, id. at 278. The Court reasoned that “common sense and elementary principles of statutory construction . . . compel[led] [that conclusion] in order to give effect to the will of the Legislature.” Id. The following day, February 23, 2006, Sharp filed an application to withdraw his guilty plea. See Sharp, C-2007-345, at . That motion did not raise the argument that ______________________________________ Cont. conclusion, we disagree: we discern no such admission below, and on appeal Appellee repeatedly expressly denied that O’Neal and Sharp were similarly situated.) To assess the question of similar situation, the Court has retrieved the unpublished Sharp opinion, and takes judicial notice of it. See Guttman v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2012) (“[W]e may take judicial notice of public records.”). The Sharp opinion is thus the exclusive source of the facts of Sharp’s situation—e.g., the dates of the relevant filings and rulings in Sharp’s case—that we have before us to compare Sharp’s situation to O’Neal’s. To the extent that other evidence or documents might have demonstrated other facts about Sharp relevant to this analysis, we note that “it is [O’Neal’s] responsibility [as appellant] to provide an adequate record on appeal, and any discrepancies in the record are resolved in [Appellee’s] favor.” Arkla Energy Resources v. Roye Realty and Developing, Inc., 9 F.3d 855, 865 (10th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Dago, 441 F.3d 1238, 1251 (10th Cir. 2006). 10 ignorance of the 85% Rule rendered his plea involuntary. See id. The trial court denied Sharp’s motion to withdraw his plea on March 15, 2006, and Sharp appealed that denial to the OCCA on June 9, 2006. See id. Then, on August 30, 2006, the OCCA held in Ferguson v. State, 143 P.3d 218 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006), that a defendant’s negotiated nolo contendere plea was involuntary because he had not been informed of the 85% Rule. The OCCA held: Before entering a guilty or nolo plea, a defendant should be advised of the punishment range for the offense. . . . In the instant case, Petitioner . . . . did not learn about the 85% rule until after he pled guilty [sic: the petitioner actually pled nolo contendere] . . . . Under the circumstances presented here, we find that Petitioner’s plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made. Consequently, Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea. Id. at 219 (emphasis added). Roughly five months later, on January 22, 2007, O’Neal filed her application to withdraw her blind nolo plea; she did not raise ignorance of the 85% Rule as an argument for plea involuntariness. The state trial court denied her motion on February 20, 2007. Soon thereafter, on February 21, 2007, the OCCA granted Sharp’s pending certiorari petition and “remanded the case for a new hearing on Sharp’s Application to Withdraw his Plea. See Sharp, C-2007-345, at . On March 29, 2007, the trial court again denied Sharp’s application to withdraw. See id. Sharp then again appealed to the OCCA. See id. 11 Then, on May 4, 2007, in Pickens, the OCCA confronted the case of a defendant who had entered into a blind nolo plea (as opposed to the negotiated nolo plea in Ferguson), and came to the same conclusion it had in Ferguson: 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. Ferguson v. State, 143 P.3d 218, 219 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). We conclude that a defendant has a right to be informed of the 85% Rule when entering a plea, and make no distinction between a negotiated sentence and a blind plea to the trial court. 158 P.3d at 483. Afterwards, on August 20, 2007, O’Neal petitioned for certiorari in OCCA in regards to her conviction and sentence, asserting as one ground of error below that her plea was involuntary in light of her ignorance of the 85% Rule. On November 30, 2007, the OCCA granted Sharp’s second certiorari petition, concluding that Sharp’s ignorance of the 85% Rule at the time of his guilty plea rendered his plea involuntary. See Sharp, C-2007-345, at . In response to the prosecution’s argument that Sharp had waived that argument “by not including it in his Application to Withdraw his pleas, id. at  n.1, the OCCA reflected that “new rules of criminal procedure must be applied to cases pending on direct review at the time the rule is announced,” id. (citing Carter v. State, 147 P.3d 243, 244 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006)). The OCCA had just cited both Pickens and Ferguson in support of its holding that Sharp’s plea was involuntary in light of his ignorance of the 85% Rule. See id. Then, having recognized the applicability of new rules to cases pending on direct review, the OCCA 12 held that “[a]s a result, Sharp receives the benefit of Pickens and Ferguson.” Id. Finally, on January 11, 2008, the OCCA rejected O’Neal’s 85%-Rule argument for plea involuntariness in her certiorari petition. The OCCA did not mention Sharp, but it cited its February 2006 decision in Anderson, suggesting that the rule of Anderson was sufficient to make the 85%-Rule argument available to O’Neal when she filed her motion to withdraw her plea in January 2007. But because O’Neal had failed to raise that argument in her motion to withdraw her plea, the OCCA held that argument waived, pursuant to Rule 4.2(B) of the Rules of the OCCA.4