A.B.H. v The State of Oklahoma

J 2002-0247

Filed: Jun. 5, 2002

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: A.B.H.

Summary

A.B.H. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon With Intent To Kill. The conviction and sentence were reversed. Judge Strubhar dissented.

Decision

Based upon a review of the record before this Court and after hearing oral argument, we find the State did not meet its burden. We do not find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial judge's findings and conclusions. Both the Certification Study and the Psychological Evaluation prepared and reviewed by the trial judge submit that Appellant can complete a plan of rehabilitation and that the public can be adequately protected if Appellant is sentenced as a Youthful Offender. These submissions were not refuted by the State. Therefore, the order of the District Court of Cleveland County granting the State's motion for imposition of an adult sentence is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 5th day of June 2002.

Issues

• Was the trial court's decision to not certify Appellant as a Youthful Offender an abuse of discretion?
• Was Appellant's right to due process denied due to the excessive delay in hearing the State's motion for adult sentencing?
• Did the delay in processing the State's motion work to the disadvantage of Appellant, warranting reversal under the doctrine of laches?
• Did the State meet its burden of proving that Appellant would not reasonably complete a plan of rehabilitation or that public safety would not be adequately protected if sentenced as a Youthful Offender?

Findings

• The trial court abused its discretion in not certifying Appellant as a Youthful Offender.
• Appellant's right to due process was denied by the excessive delay by the trial court in hearing the State's motion to have Appellant stand trial as an adult.

J 2002-0247

Jun. 5, 2002

A.B.H.

Appellant

v

The State of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

A.B.H., ) ) Appellant, ) ) V. ) No. J 2002-0247 ) THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) ) Appellee.

ACCELERATED DOCKET ORDER

Appellant, born May 31, 1985, was charged as a Youthful Offender October 1, 2001, in the District Court of Cleveland County, Case No. CF-2001-1279, with Assault and Battery With A Deadly Weapon With Intent To Kill. On October 16, 2001, the State filed a Motion for Adult Sentencing. Following a hearing February 8, 2002, the Honorable Tom A. Lucas, District Judge, granted the State’s motion. Appellant appeals from the order of the District Court sustaining the State’s motion to sentence him as an adult should he be convicted. On appeal Appellant raised two propositions of error:

1. The trial court abused its discretion in not certifying Appellant as a Youthful Offender.
2. Appellant’s right to due process was denied by the excessive delay by the trial court in hearing the State’s motion to have Appellant stand trial as an adult.

In addition, the delay of nearly four months from the time the State filed its motion to sentence Appellant as an adult worked to the disadvantage of Appellant, and the order granting the State’s motion to sentence Appellant as an adult should be reversed under the doctrine of laches.

Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2001), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. The propositions were presented to this Court in oral argument May 16, 2002, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court. Section 7306-2.8 of Title 10 directs the trial judge to certify the person as eligible for the imposition of an adult sentence only if the trial court finds 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.

Based upon a review of the record before this Court and after hearing oral argument, we find the State did not meet its burden. We do not find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s findings and conclusions. Both the Certification Study and the Psychological Evaluation prepared and reviewed by the trial judge submit that Appellant can complete a plan of rehabilitation and that the public can be adequately protected if Appellant is sentenced as a Youthful Offender. These submissions were not refuted by the State.

Therefore, the order of the District Court of Cleveland County granting the State’s motion for imposition of an adult sentence is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 5th day of June 2002.

GARY L LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge DISSENTS RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge STEVE LILE, Judge

ATTEST: Jainers Clerk Patternor

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 10 § 7306-2.8
2. Rule 11.2(A)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2001)
3. Rule 11.2(F)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

No Oklahoma statutes found.

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:

No case citations found.