S.H. v The State Of Oklahoma
J-2005-542
Filed: Oct. 25, 2005
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: S.H.
Summary
S.H. appealed his conviction for being sentenced as an adult. Conviction and sentence were reversed. Judge Johnson dissented.
Decision
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the District Court of Tulsa County finding Appellant should be sentenced as an adult is REVERSED. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions that Appellant be sentenced as a youthful offender. IT IS so ORDERED.
Issues
- was there sufficient clear and convincing evidence presented by the State to justify sentencing Appellant as an adult?
- did the District Court err in its conclusion regarding Appellant's potential for rehabilitation?
- was the public adequately protected if Appellant were sentenced as a youthful offender?
Findings
- the court erred
- evidence was not sufficient
- the order is reversed
- remanded to sentence as a youthful offender
J-2005-542
Oct. 25, 2005
S.H.
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
S.H., )
) Appellant, )
) V. ) No. J-2005-5421 )
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, )
) Appellee. )
ACCELERATED DOCKET ORDER
Appellant appeals from an order of the Tulsa County District Court, the Honorable Gordon D. McCallister, Jr., District Judge, Case Nos. CF-2004-3089 and CF-2004-3213, finding Appellant should be sentenced as an adult. Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(1), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. Appellant’s propositions of error were presented in oral argument on October 6, 2005, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of this Court’s decision. After a review of the record, we find Appellant’s second proposition of error has merit. Our review of the record reveals the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence that there is good cause to believe Appellant would not reasonably complete the plan of rehabilitation, or that the public would not be adequately protected if the accused were to be sentenced as a youthful offender. See G.G. V. State, 1999 OK CR 7, 989 P.2d 936, 939.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the District Court of Tulsa County finding Appellant should be sentenced as an adult is REVERSED. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions that Appellant be sentenced as a youthful offender. IT IS so ORDERED.
WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 25 day of October, 2005.
CHARLES CHAPEL, Presiding Judge
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice-Presiding Judge
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge
ARLENE DAVID B. LEWIS, Judge
ATTEST: Michael S. Richie, Clerk
Footnotes:
- See G.G. v. State, 1999 OK CR 7, 989 P.2d 936, 939.
- Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(1), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005).
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Sentencing of youthful offenders
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2(A)(1) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2(F) - Oral argument procedures
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:
- G.G. v. State, 1999 OK CR 7, 989 P.2d 936, 939