D. J., III v The State Of Oklahoma

J 2019-0283

Filed: Sep. 5, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

D. J., III appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. Conviction and sentence were affirmed. Justices Lumpkin and Hudson dissented. In this case, D. J., who was nearly eighteen, was charged with a crime he committed at school. The State asked to treat him as an adult, which the judge allowed after a hearing. D. J. argued that the court didn’t follow the rules correctly and that applying the adult sentence was wrong. However, the court agreed with the judge's decision, stating that the judge was right to think that D. J. wouldn’t get enough help if he stayed in the juvenile system. Although there were some mistakes made by the judge in terms of the laws referenced, the court found that these errors didn’t harm D. J.’s case. The dissenting justices felt that it was unfair to treat D. J. as an adult because he was so close to being considered an adult anyway. They believed that he still had a chance for rehabilitation and that more flexibility should be given to juvenile cases like this one. They urged lawmakers to change the laws to help young offenders better.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County granting the State's motion for imposition of an adult sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was the State able to prove its case for certification by clear and convincing evidence under 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in deciding to impose an adult sentence on Appellant?
• Did the trial court apply the wrong statute to the evidence presented at the certification hearing?
• Was Appellant prejudiced by the trial court referencing the wrong statute in its conclusions?

Findings

• the court affirmed the order granting imposition of an adult sentence
• the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an adult sentence
• the trial court erred by referencing the wrong statute, but the appellant was not prejudiced by this error

J 2019-0283

Sep. 5, 2019

D. J., III

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:

Appellant, D. J., III, born November 1, 2000, was charged as an alleged delinquent child with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. The State filed a motion to certify Appellant to be tried as an adult on November 9, 2018. Following a hearing on April 5, 2019, the Honorable Susan K. Johnson, Special Judge, sustained the State’s motion for imposition of an adult sentence. Appellant appeals from the order granting the State’s motion for imposition of an adult sentence.

Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. Oral argument was held August 1, 2019. Rule 11.2(E).

On appeal, Appellant raises the following propositions of error:

1. The State failed to prove its case for certification by clear and convincing evidence under 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403. The decision of the trial court to impose an adult sentence should be reversed as an abuse of discretion.
2. The trial court erred and prejudiced Appellant when it applied the wrong statute to the evidence presented at the certification hearing, and the decision to impose an adult sentence on Appellant should be reversed after de novo review.

We affirm the order granting imposition of an adult sentence.

In Appellant’s first proposition of error, he argues the trial court abused its discretion imposing an adult sentence. Absent an abuse of discretion, the juvenile judge, as trier of fact, has the discretion and the prerogative to assess the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh and value their testimony and opinions. An abuse of discretion has been defined by this Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application. R.J.D. v. State, 1990 OK CR 68, I 16, 799 P.2d 1122, 1125. See Stevens U. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 216, 232 P.2d 949, 959 (1951).

Judge Johnson concluded Appellant could not reasonably complete a plan of rehabilitation through the juvenile system. Therefore, she found Appellant is not amenable to treatment, and the public would not be adequately protected if Appellant were sentenced as a juvenile. We do not find this conclusion clearly erroneous.

Appellant’s final proposition of error claims the trial court erred and prejudiced Appellant by applying the wrong statutory factors. Judge Johnson’s Order on State’s Motion for Imposition of an Adult Sentence references the correct statute in its Findings of Fact, 10A O.S. § 2-2-403, but then clearly references the wrong statute, 10A O.S. § 2-5-208, in her conclusions. While we find this is error, we also find Appellant was not prejudiced by this error. The required considerations in these statutes are basically the same with the exception that Section 2-5-208 requires the court to weigh the factors.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Oklahoma County granting the State’s motion for imposition of an adult sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403.
2. 10A O.S. § 2-5-208.
3. 10A O.S.2011, § 2-2-102(B)(2); T.G.L. U. State, 2015 OK CR 4, II 7, 344 P.3d 1098, 1099.
4. Arganbright U. State, 2014 OK CR 5, I 29, 328 P.3d 1212, 1219.
5. 10A O.S. § 2-5-208(C).
6. 10A O.S.2011, § 2-2-403(A)(2) and 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208(C)(2).
7. Harvey U. State, 1969 OK CR 220, I 9, 458 P.2d 336, 338.
8. 10A O.S.2011, § 2-2-403(A)(6).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-2-403 - Certification of juvenile as adult
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-208 - Imposition of adult sentence in youthful offender cases
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-2-102(B)(2) - Juvenile court jurisdiction
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-2-403(A)(6) - Considerations for rehabilitation

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• R.J.D. v. State, 1990 OK CR 68, I 16, 799 P.2d 1122, 1125.
• Stevens U. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 216, 232 P.2d 949, 959 (1951).
• T.G.L. U. State, 2015 OK CR 4, II 7, 344 P.3d 1098, 1099.
• Arganbright U. State, 2014 OK CR 5, I 29, 328 P.3d 1212, 1219.
• Harvey U. State, 1969 OK CR 220, I 9, 458 P.2d 336, 338.