L.M.P. v The State Of Oklahoma

J-2008-02

Filed: May 6, 2008

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: L.M.P.

Summary

L.M.P. appealed her conviction for Murder in the First Degree. The conviction and sentence were reversed, and she was ordered to be certified as a youthful offender. Judge Johnson dissented.

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the District Court of Oklahoma County denying Appellant's motion to be sentenced as a Youthful Offender is REVERSED. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter is REMANDED to the District Court with directions that Appellant is to be certified as a youthful offender. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Appellant's motion for certification as a youthful offender?
• Did Appellant establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she should be tried and sentenced as a youthful offender rather than as an adult?

Findings

• the trial court abused its discretion
• Appellant is to be certified as a youthful offender

J-2008-02

May 6, 2008

L.M.P.

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, JUDGE:

Appellant has appealed from an order of the Oklahoma County District Court, the Honorable Carol Hubbard, District Judge, denying her motion for certification as a youthful offender. Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(1), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. Appellant’s propositions of error were presented in oral argument on March 27, 2008, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of the oral argument, the parties were advised of this Court’s decision.

In one proposition of error, Appellant contends she established by a preponderance of the evidence she should be tried and sentenced as a youthful offender, not an adult, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for certification as a youthful offender. In cases of this nature, this Court will review the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial court in reaching its decision. See C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, 989 P.2d 945, 946. We have defined abuse of discretion 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. Id. After a review of all the evidence presented to the trial court, we find Appellant established by a preponderance of the evidence she should be treated as a youthful offender. See C.R.B. v. State, 1999 OK CR 1, 973 P.2d 339. As such, we find the trial court’s ruling denying Appellant’s motion for youthful offender certification was an abuse of discretion.

Decision
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the order of the District Court of Oklahoma County denying Appellant’s motion to be sentenced as a Youthful Offender is REVERSED. IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that this matter is REMANDED to the District Court with directions that Appellant is to be certified as a youthful offender. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
BENJAMIN C. BROWN
5905 CLASSEN COURT, SUITE 202
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118

DAVID R. SLANE
901 NW 12TH STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73106
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL
BENJAMIN C. BROWN
5905 CLASSEN COURT, SUITE 202
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118

JENNIFER E. CHANCE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
320 ROBERT S. KERR
SUITE 505
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: CHAPEL, J.

LUMPKIN, P.J.: DISSENT
JOHNSON, J., V.P.J.: CONCUR
JOHNSON, A., J.: DISSENT
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR

A. JOHNSON, JUDGE, DISSENTING: The trial court held a comprehensive hearing and filed a thorough and well-reasoned order explaining its ruling denying L.M.P.’s application for youthful offender status. Its findings are supported by the record. Our standard of review in this matter is deferential and relief is available only if we find that the trial court abused its discretion. See C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, I 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. The question here is not whether the juvenile arguably met her burden, but whether the trial court’s denial of youthful offender status to L.M.P. is clearly contrary to the applicable law and facts presented. It is not. For this reason, I dissent. I am authorized to state that Judge Lumpkin joins in this dissent.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. In Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2007-1057, Appellant was charged with Murder in the First Degree.
2. Pursuant to the statutory law applicable at the time the crime was committed, 10 O.S.Supp.2006, Section 7306-2.5(A) version 2, Appellant is presumed to be an adult.
3. Our finding in this proposition of error, renders moot Appellant's other claims of error.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10 § 7306-2.5(A) (2006) - Youthful Offender Certification
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2(A)(1) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2(F) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - 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, 989 P.2d 945, 946
• C.R.B. v. State, 1999 OK CR 1, 973 P.2d 339