From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vigil v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Nov 23, 1988
765 P.2d 794 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988)

Summary

In Vigil v. State, 1988 OK CR 276, ¶ 4, 765 P.2d 794, 794, petitioner's claim of excessive sentence was reviewed on certiorari appeal applying the “shock the conscience” standard.

Summary of this case from Whitaker v. State

Opinion

No. C-87-417.

November 23, 1988.

An Appeal from the District Court of Texas County; Frank Ogden, District Judge.

George Vigil, appellant, was convicted of first degree manslaughter, in the District Court of Texas County, Case No. CRF-86-146, sentenced to ten (10) to thirty (30) years imprisonment, and appeals. AFFIRMED.

Jim Loepp, Jim Loepp Law Office, P.C., Beaver, for petitioner.


OPINION


George Vigil, petitioner, pled nolo contendere to First Degree Manslaughter (21 O.S. 1981 § 711[ 21-711](1)), in Texas County District Court, Case No. CRF-86-146, before the Honorable Frank Ogden, District Judge. He received an indeterminate sentence of ten (10) to thirty (30) years imprisonment. Judgment and sentence was imposed accordingly. We affirm.

Petitioner's sole claim in his sentence is excessive. At the hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, petitioner's primary contention was that he had received an excessive sentence based on similar cases, and his presentence investigation report indicating he had no prior juvenile or adult criminal record.

For purposes of appellate review, a nolo contendere plea has the same legal effect as a guilty plea. See Burch v. State, 738 P.2d 157, 158 (Okla. Cr. 1987). The scope of review of a guilty plea, and thus a nolo contendere plea, is limited to whether (1) the plea was knowing and voluntary, (2) the Information was sufficient to confer jurisdiction, and (3) the sentence was legal. See Smith v. State, 462 P.2d 289, 290 (Okla. Cr. 1969). In Judge Nix's unanimous opinion in Smith, joined by Judges Brett and Bussey, the Court held "the sentences imposed are not excessive and are within the limits as provided by law. . . ." Id. The excessiveness, of the sentence was addressed in Tahsequah v. State, 602 P.2d 232, 235 (Okla. Cr. 1979), a certiorari appeal from a guilty plea.

Here, petitioner's sentence is within statutory limits, since first degree manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment for "not less than four (4) years." 21 O.S. 1981 § 715[ 21-715]. Unless the sentence is so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court, we will decline to modify. See Scales v. State, 737 P.2d 950, 954 (Okla. Cr. 1987); Tahsequah, 602 P.2d at 235. The sentence imposed does not meet this standard.

Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is DENIED, and the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.


Summaries of

Vigil v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Nov 23, 1988
765 P.2d 794 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988)

In Vigil v. State, 1988 OK CR 276, ¶ 4, 765 P.2d 794, 794, petitioner's claim of excessive sentence was reviewed on certiorari appeal applying the “shock the conscience” standard.

Summary of this case from Whitaker v. State

In Vigil v. State, 1988 OK CR 276, 765 P.2d 794, we likewise noted: "The scope of review of a guilty plea, and thus a nolo contendere plea, is limited to whether (1) the plea was knowing and voluntary, (2) the Information was sufficient to confer jurisdiction, and (3) the sentence was legal."

Summary of this case from Maxwell v. State
Case details for

Vigil v. State

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE VIGIL, PETITIONER, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, RESPONDENT

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date published: Nov 23, 1988

Citations

765 P.2d 794 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988)
1988 OK CR 276

Citing Cases

Whitaker v. State

2, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2014). ¶ 7 Citing to this Court's…

Maxwell v. State

Id. at 114, 965 P.2d at 388 (citing Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, 11 26, 932 P.2d 22, 30). In Vigil v.…