Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingburden of proof
hearingpleaobjectionappellantguilty plea

Related Cases

Erwin v. State, 111 Nev. 1535, 908 P.2d 1367, 44 A.L.R.5th 859
View Case »
People v. Geraci, 85 N.Y.2d 359, 649 N.E.2d 817, 625 N.Y.S.2d 469, 63 USLW 2630
View Case »
Glass v. State, 227 S.W.3d 463
View Case »
Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242
View Case »
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Cheadle v. State, 762 P.2d 995, 1988 OK CR 226

Facts

Kyle Randall Cheadle was convicted of two counts of Burglary Second Degree and had his sentences suspended. After one year, part of his sentence was revoked, and in 1980, the State filed another application to revoke the remaining two years. However, the revocation hearing did not occur until 1985, during which the State attempted to base the revocation on a subsequent conviction for Assault With a Dangerous Weapon, but failed to prove that this conviction was final.

Appellant, Kyle Randall Cheadle, pursuant to a guilty plea, was convicted of two charges of the crime of Burglary Second Degree in Oklahoma County Case Nos. CRF–79–287 and CRF–79–188. He was sentenced to three years on each charge, the sentences to run consecutively. His sentences were initially suspended, however, on August 9, 1979, one year was revoked; subsequently on May 28, 1980, the State filed another application to revoke the balance (2 years) of his suspended sentences. The revocation hearing on this last application was not held until March 5, 1985; the court revoked both sentences in full and ordered appellant to serve the two years remaining.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the State's five-year delay in holding the revocation hearing constituted a breach of due diligence and whether the State proved that the subsequent conviction was final.

Appellant claims this revocation is defective on two counts; first, that the five year span between the application being filed and the hearing on the revocation is a breach of an obligation by the State to proceed with due diligence. Second, appellant contends there was a failure of proof that appellant's conviction in the Caddo County case was final.

Rule

The court applied the principle that the State must proceed with due diligence in revocation proceedings and must prove the finality of any subsequent convictions used as a basis for revocation.

We find both objections are well taken. It is apparent the State had abandoned their application.

Analysis

The court determined that the State had abandoned its application for revocation due to the excessive delay and that the State's failure to prove the finality of the subsequent conviction undermined the basis for revocation. The court noted that the State did not provide any justification for the delay and failed to meet the minimal requirements for revocation.

The State failed to prove the Judgment was final.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment and sentence revoking Cheadle's suspended sentence and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the order of revocation.

The Judgment and Sentence revoking appellant's suspended sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to vacate the order of revocation.

Who won?

Kyle Randall Cheadle prevailed in the case because the court found that the State failed to meet its burden of proof and did not act with due diligence in the revocation process.

We find both objections are well taken.

You must be