Michael S. Richie v The State Of Oklahoma

J 2010-0788

Filed: Jan. 19, 2011

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Michael S. Richie appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon. His conviction and sentence were reversed. Judge Lumpkin dissented. In this case, Michael, who was born in 1994, was charged as a Youthful Offender in Oklahoma. The State wanted him to be sentenced as an adult, so they filed a motion for that. Michael asked to be treated as a juvenile instead. After a hearing, the judge decided to sentence him as an adult. Michael appealed because he believed the judge made mistakes. The appeals court found that the judge did not follow the rules when deciding to sentence him as an adult. They said there was not enough evidence to show that Michael could not be rehabilitated or that the public was not safe if he were treated as a Youthful Offender. So, they reversed the adult sentencing decision, but they agreed with the judge's decision to not treat him as a juvenile. Michael's case was sent back to the district court to be handled correctly.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Muskogee County denying Appellant's motion for certification as a Juvenile is AFFIRMED and the order granting the State's motion to sentence Appellant as an adult if convicted is REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED for further proceedings with Appellant being sentenced as a Youthful Offender should he be convicted of the charged crime. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 1 18, App. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that imposition of an adult sentence was necessary?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for certification as a Juvenile?
• Was the written order for imposition of an adult sentence reflective of the trial court's findings and oral pronouncement?

Findings

• the court erred in granting the State's motion for imposition of an adult sentence
• the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to certify as a Juvenile is affirmed

J 2010-0788

Jan. 19, 2011

Michael S. Richie

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, JUDGE: Appellant, born March 12, 1994, was charged as a Youthful Offender in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. YO-2010-1, on April 6, 2010, with Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon. On May 7, 2010, the State filed a motion for imposition of an adult sentence. Appellant filed a motion for certification as a Juvenile on May 11, 2010. Following a hearing August 9, 2010, the Honorable Robin W. Adair, Special Judge, denied Appellant’s motion for certification as a Juvenile. In an order filed August 10, 2010, Judge Adair also granted the State’s motion for imposition of an adult sentence. Appellant appeals from the order of the District Court.

Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. Oral argument was held December 2, 2010, pursuant to Rule 11.2(E). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court.

Appellant raised three propositions of error: (1) The written order allowing imposition of adult sentence as Youthful Offender must be stricken because it is not reflective of the trial court’s findings and oral pronouncement; (2) The trial court abused its discretion in determining that there was clear and convincing evidence that the imposition of an adult sentence was necessary, thus sustaining the State’s motion; and, (3) The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to certify as a Juvenile was an abuse of discretion especially with regard to adequate protection of the public and the reasonable likelihood of Appellant’s rehabilitation.

For imposition of an adult sentence, Section 2-5-208(D) of Title 10A requires the District Court to find by clear and convincing evidence that there is good cause to believe that the accused person would not reasonably complete a plan of rehabilitation or that the public would not be adequately protected if the person were to be sentenced as a Youthful Offender. These findings were not made by the District Court. To the contrary, Judge Adair specifically found that Appellant could complete a rehabilitation plan and that the public could be adequately protected. Therefore, finding merit to Appellant’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion concluding Appellant should be sentenced as an adult, the order of the District Court granting the State’s motion to sentence Appellant as an adult is reversed and remanded for sentencing as a Youthful Offender if Appellant is convicted of the charged crime.

Addressing Appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion to sentence him as a Juvenile, we disagree. Appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion in this matter. See C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, IT 5, 989 P.2d 945. The record supports the trial judge’s decision to treat Appellant as a Youthful Offender and not as a Juvenile.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Muskogee County denying Appellant’s motion for certification as a Juvenile is AFFIRMED and the order granting the State’s motion to sentence Appellant as an adult if convicted is REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED for further proceedings with Appellant being sentenced as a Youthful Offender should he be convicted of the charged crime. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 18, App. (2010), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

OPINION BY: LEWIS, V.P.J.
JOHNSON, A., P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur
C. JOHNSON, J.: Concur
SMITH, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-208(D)
2. C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, IT 5, 989 P.2d 945

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-208(D) - Requirements for imposition of an adult sentence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2(A) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2(E) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

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:

• C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, I 5, 989 P.2d 945