Court Opinion

ID: 9535776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:52:54.801779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:19.788046
License: Public Domain

*391LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in results.
¶ 1 I join in the Court’s decision in this case. However, the Court’s statement, “[u]n-der Proposition IV, we find that under the particular facts of this case, it is irrelevant that no evidentiary hearing was held on Allen’s motion to withdraw his plea” is incorrect. The failure to hold the evidentiary hearing was error. See Rule 4.2(B), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (1998). It is the trial court’s denial of the application to withdraw plea, as supported by the record from the evidentiary hearing, which is reviewed by this Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiora-ri. Id. That is the analysis the Court should set out in the opinion rather than the legally incorrect statement that it was “irrelevant”. I do agree with the Court’s harmless error analysis of this error and therefore join in the decision.