Court Opinion

ID: 9855488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:26:03.89031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:57.640969
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
While I agree with the double jeopardy analysis, Majority, at 922-23,1 cannot concur in the departure from King v. State, 553 P.2d 529, (Okla.Crim.App.1976). King mandates that prior to accepting a guilty plea from an accused, the trial judge “must first determine if the defendant is competent by appropriate interrogation of the *925defendant, and his defense counsel ... regarding the defendant’s past and present mental state as well as by the defendant’s demeanor before the court....” Id. at 534. Here, absolutely no inquiry was made as to the competency of petitioner as required by King and, thus, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea. See Wester v. State, 764 P.2d 884, 886 (Okla.Crim.App.1988); Smith v. State, 757 P.2d 844, 845 (Okla.Crim.App.1988); Love v. State, 738 P.2d 564, 565 (Okla.Crim.App.1987); Burch v. State, 738 P.2d 157, 158-59 (Okla.Crim.App.1987); Coyle v. State, 706 P.2d 547, 548 (Okla.Crim.App.1985).
The majority ignores existing precedent and in effect overrules the foregoing cases sub silentio. Requiring trial judges to make records in guilty or nolo contendere plea cases in compliance with King best expedites the interests of justice and promotes finality by foreclosing state and federal collateral attacks. The majority’s reliance on the substantial compliance standard of State v. Durant, 609 P.2d 792 (Okla.Crim.App.1980), severely undermines King.