Court Opinion

ID: 9795337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:26:26.456896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:35.594843
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge:
Dissent.
T1 I dissent to the Court's decision to grant certiorari in this case and thereby allow him to withdraw his pleas. There's really no "evidence" that Pickens was not advised of the 85% rule; there is merely the absence of any evidence that he was so advised in the record. Petitioner entered "blind" pleas to the charges, and he was informed of the proper range of punishment *484for his crimes. The Court needs to remember a "blind plea" is just that, a plea of guilty without any guarantee as to what the sentence will be.
T2 All we really have is Petitioner's bare claim that he did not "understand" his crimes were subject to the 85% rule, despite the fact that he was represented by a very competent, experienced attorney. He pled blind to the charges and admitted guilt. The trial judge was thorough in his advice of rights and effect of a blind plea. The application to withdraw plea of guilty does not raise the 85% rule issue and, in accordance with this Court's precedent, that issue is waived.
13 Under these cireumstances, I see no reason to grant Petitioner any relief At most, we should remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on this issue, where we hear from the attorney in question and actually obtain some evidence to back up or refute these claims.
14 At times, the mere mention of Anderson's 85% rule has caused the Court to order relief when no relief is warranted. Our jurisprudence requires more than that. In addition, this is just another case which proves the concerns I expressed in my separate writing to Ferguson v. State, 2006 OK CR 36, 143 P.3d 218, were valid.