Jose Joel Zamarripa v. The State of Oklahoma

Tulsa, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant convicted or first-degree manslaughter in violation of 21 O.S. 711.





On May 15, 2019, Appellant entered a guilty plea to Manslaughter in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711, and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. On June 11, 2020, Judge Smith modified Appellant's sentence, pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 982a, by suspending the balance of the sentence under certain rules and conditions of probation.



¶2 On October 2, 2020, the State filed an Amended Application to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging Appellant violated his probation by: (1) failing to report within 48 hours that he had been questioned by officers with the Bixby Police Department regarding his involvement in a fight on August 22, 2020, in which a firearm had reportedly been fired; (2) committing the crime of Obstructing an Officer, a misdemeanor, as alleged in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CM-2020-3343; (3) receiving a citation from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol for Speeding 26-30 MPH Over the Limit, as alleged in Tulsa County District Court Case No. TR-2020-11222; (4) receiving a citation from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol for Operating a Motor Vehicle Without Being Licensed or with Expired Driver's License, as alleged in Tulsa County District Court Case No. TR-2020-11223; and (5) receiving a citation from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol for Following Too Closely, as alleged in Tulsa County District Court Case No. TR-2020-11224.



¶3 On November 10, 2020, Appellant appeared before the trial court with his attorney, Johnnie James, and confessed the State's application to revoke. The written confession, which was signed by both Appellant and counsel James, noted that Appellant was confessing "blind." The confession was filed by the District Court Clerk and made a part of the case record.



¶4 On December 17, 2020, Appellant again appeared before the trial court for revocation sentencing. Judge Smith began the hearing by announcing he had substituted counsel by appointing the Public Defender's Office to represent Appellant because counsel James's presence could not be obtained that day due to COVID-related restrictions. Assistant Public Defender Kasey Baldwin represented Appellant during the proceeding. Counsel Baldwin submitted a letter of apology written by Appellant to the court. Judge Smith accepted the letter and then announced that he would issue his ruling by court minute. Judge Smith issued an order later that day revoking Appellant's suspended sentence in full. [1] Appellant appeals, raising seven propositions of error:



I. THE ORDER OF REVOCATION IN THIS CASE IS EXCESSIVE BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.



II. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR COUNSELING MR. ZAMARRIPA TO STIPULATE TO THE REVOCATION WITHOUT ANY RECOMMENDATION FROM OR AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE.



III. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ENSURE A PROPER RECORD OF APPELLANT'S PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE AVAILABLE, IF NEEDED, FOR APPELLATE PURPOSES.



IV. THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS DENIED JOSE ZAMARRIPA DUE PROCESS OF LAW.



V. APPELLANT'S NEWLY APPOINTED ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SEEK A CONTINUANCE WHEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MR. ZAMARRIPA ON THE DAY OF HIS REVOCATION SENTENCING HEARING.



VI. APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY THE DISTRICT COURT AT HIS REVOCATION SENTENCING HEARING WHEN FORCED TO PROCEED WITH AN ATTORNEY WHO HAD JUST BEEN APPOINTED TO HIS CASE THAT DAY AND WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARED TO REPRESENT HIM.



VII. THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THESE ERRORS DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND WARRANT RELIEF FOR JOSE ZAMARRIPA.

Zamarripa v. State, 2022 OK CR 10 (Okla. Crim. App. 2022)

Affirmed.