D.R.F. v The State Of Oklahoma

J-2010-653

Filed: Dec. 1, 2010

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State of Oklahoma

Summary

D.R.F. appealed his conviction for multiple delinquent acts, including arson, assault on a police officer, and driving under the influence. The court reversed his certification as an adult and returned him to the juvenile system with the necessary treatment options available. Judges Lumpkin and Smith dissented, believing D.R.F. should remain certified as an adult due to the serious nature of his actions.

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the June 25, 2010, order of the Juvenile Division of the Washita County District Court, Case No. JDL-2010-4, sustaining the State's motion to certify Appellant as an adult, is REVERSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS to retain Appellant as a child concerning the acts alleged in the State's delinquency petition filed on February 10, 2010. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2009), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the certification of the juvenile as an adult?
• Did the trial court appropriately consider the criteria for juvenile certification under the applicable statute?
• Was the trial court's finding regarding the juvenile's amenability to rehabilitation within the juvenile system an abuse of discretion?
• Did the court err in weighing the juvenile's prior lack of serious delinquent behavior against the need for treatment and public safety?
• Was the age of the juvenile at the time of the offenses a significant factor in the certification decision?
• Did the evidence presented adequately show whether the juvenile could be rehabilitated in the juvenile system rather than the adult system?

Findings

• the court reversed the juvenile court's order certifying Appellant as an adult
• the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Appellant should be prosecuted as an adult
• the court found Appellant amenable to treatment in the juvenile system

J-2010-653

Dec. 1, 2010

D.R.F.

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

C. JOHNSON, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant, a juvenile, was charged by delinquency petition in the Juvenile Division of the Washita County District Court, Case No. JDL-2010-4, with Count 1: Arson-Third Degree, Count 2: Endangering Human Life During Arson, Count 3: Assault and Battery Upon Police Officer, Count 4: Endeavoring to Perform Act of Violence, Count 5: Malicious Injury to Property Under $1,000.00, Count 6: Disturbing the Peace, Count 7: Driving under the Influence by a Person Under 21, and Count 8: Driving with License Suspended. Appellant was approximately seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the alleged delinquent acts. The State filed a motion to certify Appellant as an adult. The Honorable Christopher S. Kelly, Associate District Judge, heard that motion and found prosecutive merit existed on the felony counts and received evidence as to certification. Judge Kelly found Appellant should be certified to stand trial as an adult, and from that June 25, 2010, order of certification, Appellant has perfected this appeal. The appeal was regularly assigned to this Court’s Accelerated Docket under Section XI of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2010). Oral argument was held on October 7, 2010.

Appellant raised a single proposition of error on appeal: Proposition The State failed to prove its case for certification with evidence that was clear and convincing. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision to certify Appellant as an adult should be reversed as an abuse of discretion. After hearing oral argument and after a thorough consideration of Appellant’s proposition of error and the entire record before us on appeal, by a vote of three (3) to two (2), the court reverses the juvenile court’s order certifying Appellant as an adult.

The certification statute applicable to Appellant’s case is found at 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403. Under that statute’s certification procedures, after the district attorney has established prosecutive merit on those alleged offenses that would be felonies if committed by an adult, the State then has the further burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the child should be held accountable as an adult if ultimately found to have committed those acts or omissions on which prosecutive merit was found. 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403(A). In this regard, the statute presents seven criteria for determining the issue of certification. The Court has reviewed the record of the evidence presented, and following these statutory provisions, the Court FINDS that the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Appellant should be prosecuted as an adult.

In making this finding, the Court is guided by the following principles: We begin with the principle that the provision that permits the juvenile court to waive its exclusive jurisdiction and certify a child to stand trial as an adult contemplates the exceptional case in which the child is not amenable to treatment under the juvenile facilities and programs available to the court. [T]here is no presumption that a child who has committed a very serious act is not receptive to rehabilitative treatment. T.C. v. State, 1987 OK CR 151, II 14-15, 740 P.2d 739, 742 (citations omitted). Although the question of whether a child is amenable to rehabilitative treatment in the juvenile system is a discretionary decision within the purview of the trial court, the trial court must first determine if the evidence is sufficient to meet the burden of proof before discretion can be exercised in rendering a decision. W.C.P. v. State, 1990 OK CR 24, I 9, 791 P.2d 97, 100.

In Appellant’s matter, the undisputed evidence revealed that for several years Appellant had been prescribed a generic form of Ritalin and while taking that medication was misdiagnosed in November of 2009 for depression and prescribed an additional medication, Prozac. On receiving this additional prescription, Appellant’s condition worsened, and on February 6, 2010, when Appellant drank alcohol while taking these medications, he committed the delinquent acts on which he was certified. While in detention and within two weeks of the delinquent behavior, Appellant was properly diagnosed and prescribed the appropriate medications for his condition. Prior to the Prozac prescription, Appellant had no delinquent history other than minor traffic offenses. Since discontinuing the Prozac and receiving the correct medication, Appellant has displayed nothing but appropriate behavior. In this regard, Appellant, in addition to submitting to management of his medications and seeing his treating physician as directed, placed himself under treatment plans with a youth and family services organization that included the involvement of Appellant’s mother and included Appellant’s daily 1 The psychological examination submitted by the State in support of its certification motion described Appellant’s behavior as the likely result of a toxic psychosis that arose from the combination of Prozac, Ritalin, and alcohol and where the individual can lose the ability to determine right or wrong. (O.R. 30.)

participation in a twelve-step program to address his alcohol consumption. Appellant was in full compliance with these efforts and expected to complete them by the end of this year, months before his 19th birthday. Further evidence revealed that Appellant addressed his education needs and enrolled in a state college.

The State’s only certification witness, an Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA) Juvenile Justice Specialist, testified that if Appellant would continue to do that which he had been doing in the community since the February 6th incident, the public could be adequately protected and the prospects for rehabilitation were very good. (May 3, 2010, Tr. 20-21.) This witness’ main concern, however, was Appellant’s age, for the juvenile system’s authority over Appellant would lapse after Appellant reached his 19th birthday, and should he remain in the juvenile system, OJA would have few tools to ensure Appellant’s continued compliance in his rehabilitation efforts should Appellant choose not to continue in those efforts.

We find the foregoing evidence compelled denial of the State’s certification motion, for all of that evidence presented revealed Appellant amenable to treatment, that the necessary treatment was available if Appellant were left in the juvenile system, and that Appellant would likely be rehabilitated. Only if it is flatly presumed that Appellant will not continue his rehabilitation efforts is 2 The trial court seems to have been troubled by the OJA specialist’s testimony that Appellant’s lack of juvenile history would likely cause him to score too low for placement in any of OJA’s secure institutions or in an OJA residential facility. The trial court therefore apparently believed there was no way to ensure Appellant could get the treatment he needed if kept in the juvenile system and placed in OJA custody. This, however, is contrary to the testimony as Appellant was fully accessing the treatment resources necessary for his rehabilitation, and there was no evidence that he could not continue to do so if he remained a child. Consequently, the evidence that Appellant’s lack of previous delinquent behaviors would likely disqualify him for OJA controlled resources was given inappropriate significance by the trial court in determining whether there was likelihood for reasonable rehabilitation through the juvenile court.

Such a presumption has no basis in the applicable certification statute and can arise only from assuming that Appellant will not continue his treatment once there is a reduction in the legal incentive for compliance. Given that there is no evidence suggesting Appellant’s desire for treatment is insincere or that he intends to discontinue treatment, and given that there is nothing in the law rendering the District Court wholly powerless to enforce any recommended treatment plan, and given further that a great portion of Appellant’s rehabilitation occurred with his proper diagnosis and prescription of appropriate medications; the speculative fear that Appellant might discontinue the remainder of his treatment is not great enough to override the statute’s favoring of juvenile retention nor great enough to amount to that clear and convincing evidence required for certification.³

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the June 25, 2010, order of the Juvenile Division of the Washita County District Court, Case No. JDL-2010-4, sustaining the State’s motion to certify Appellant as an adult, is REVERSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS to retain Appellant as a child concerning the acts alleged in the State’s delinquency petition filed on February 10, 2010. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2009), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED upon the filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHITA COUNTY

BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER S. KELLY, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

ANTHONY G. MITCHELL
200 EAST 4TH STREET
HOBART, OKLAHOMA 73651
ATTORNEY FOR JUVENILE

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

ROBERT W. JACKSON
OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM
P.O. BOX 841
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLATE

MEGAN L. SIMPSON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
WASHITA COUNTY COURTHOUSE
111 EAST MAIN
CORDELL, OKLAHOMA 73632
ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF OKLAHOMA

MEGAN L. SIMPSON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
WASHITA COUNTY COURTHOUSE
111 EAST MAIN
CORDELL, OKLAHOMA 73632
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: C. JOHNSON, P.J.
A. Johnson, V.P.J.: CONCUR
Lumpkin, J.: DISSENT
Lewis, J.: CONCUR
Smith, J.: DISSENT

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403.
2. T.C. v. State, 1987 OK CR 151, ¶ 14-15, 740 P.2d 739, 742.
3. W.C.P. v. State, 1990 OK CR 24, ¶ 9, 791 P.2d 97, 100.
4. J. T. P. v. State, 1975 OK CR 242, ¶ 10, 544 P.2d 1270, 1275.
5. K.M.C. v. State, 2009 OK CR 29, ¶ 7, 221 P.3d 735, 737.
6. V.J.A. v. State, 1999 OK CR 40, ¶ 11, 993 P.2d 773, 776.
7. 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403(A)(1).
8. 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403(A)(2).
9. 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403(A)(3).
10. 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403(A)(4).
11. 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-2-403(A)(7).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-2-403 - Certification of juvenile to stand trial as an adult
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-2-403(A) - Criteria for determining certification
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Sentencing for certain offenses

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.