M.D.M. v State Of Oklahoma

J-2010-839

Filed: Jan. 25, 2011

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

M.D.M. appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. Conviction and sentence were affirmed, but the order to treat him as an adult was reversed. A. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Muskogee County denying Appellant's Motion for Certification as a Juvenile in Muskogee County Case No. CF-YO-2010-2 is AFFIRMED. This matter is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to treat Appellant as a Youthful Offender if convicted of the charged offense. The portion of the District Court's written order granting the State's motion to sentence Appellant as an adult is REVERSED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2011), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was the written order allowing imposition of an adult sentence as a youthful offender properly reflective of the trial court's findings and oral pronouncement?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying M.D.M.'s motion for certification as a juvenile?
• Was the trial court's decision to grant the State's motion to impose an adult sentence an abuse of discretion and against the weight of the evidence presented?

Findings

• The District Court's order denying Appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile is AFFIRMED.
• The portion of the District Court's written order granting the State's motion to sentence Appellant as an adult is REVERSED.
• This matter is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions that M.D.M. be treated as a Youthful Offender if convicted of the charged offense.

J-2010-839

Jan. 25, 2011

M.D.M.

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

A. JOHNSON, PRESIDING JUDGE: On March 12, 2010, Appellant, M.D.M., was charged as a Youthful Offender with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon in Muskogee County District Court Case No. CF-YO-2010-2. Appellant was 16 years, 9 months and 23 days old at the time the offense was committed. In an order entered August 30, 2010, filed September 2, 2010, the District Court of Muskogee County, the Honorable Robin Adair, Special Judge, denied M.D.M.’s request for certification as a Juvenile, ordering that he be treated as a Youthful Offender. The written order memorializing the outcome of the hearing, titled Order Allowing Imposition of Adult Sentence as Youthful Offender, also granted the State’s corresponding motion to sentence Appellant as an adult. From these rulings, M.D.M. appeals.

M.D.M. raised three propositions of error on appeal:
1. The written order allowing imposition of adult sentence as youthful offender must be stricken because it does not reflect the trial court’s findings and oral pronouncement;
2. The trial court’s denial of M.D.M.’s Motion to Certify as a Juvenile was an abuse of discretion, especially with regard to adequate protection of the public, the reasonable likelihood of Appellant’s rehabilitation, and the time required in a treatment program; and
3. If this Court finds that the trial court actually granted the State’s Motion to Impose an Adult Sentence, that decision was an abuse of discretion and against the weight of the evidence presented, particularly concerning the reasonable likelihood of M.D.M.’s rehabilitation and simultaneous adequate protection of the public.

Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(1), 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. The propositions or issues were presented to this Court in oral argument December 09, 2010, pursuant to Rule 11.2(E). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court. The District Court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for certification as a juvenile is AFFIRMED.

At oral argument, the State agreed that the written order purportedly granting the State’s motion to sentence M.D.M. as an adult did not properly reflect the trial court’s findings and Judge Adair’s oral pronouncement at the hearing on the parties’ respective motions. This matter is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions that M.D.M. be treated as a Youthful Offender.

M.D.M. was charged as a youthful offender. See, 10A O.S.Supp.2010 §§ 2-5-202(A)(1)(b) and 2-5-206(B)(6). He then filed a motion to be certified for treatment as a juvenile. See, 10A O.S.Supp.2010 § 2-5-205. The burden to sustain the motion to be certified as a juvenile falls upon the accused. J.D.P. v. State, 1999 OK CR 5, I 6, 989 P.2d 948, 949. It is not the State’s responsibility to show that the defendant is not amenable to treatment as a juvenile. It is the defendant’s burden to overcome the presumption that he should be tried as a Youthful Offender by showing that he is amenable to treatment as a Juvenile and should be certified as such.

The question before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for certification as a juvenile or youthful offender. [A]buse of discretion is defined by this Court 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. The trial court’s decision must be determined by the evidence presented on the record, just as our review is limited to the record presented. (citations omitted, emphasis added..) W.C.P. v. State, 1990 OK CR 24, I 9, 791 P.2d 97, 100. See also, C.L.F. U. State, 1999 OK CR 12, I 5, 70 OBJ 946, 946 (Okl.Cr. 1999).

M.D.M. has not shown that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his Motion for Certification as a Juvenile. For imposition of an adult sentence, 10A O.S.Supp. $2-5-208.D. 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. No such findings were 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 if he was treated as a Youthful Offender.

We find merit in M.D.M.’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering M.D.M. to be sentenced as an adult. The order of the District Court granting the State’s motion to sentence M.D.M. as an adult is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED with instructions that M.D.M. be treated as a Youthful Offender if convicted of the charged offense.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Muskogee County denying Appellant’s Motion for Certification as a Juvenile in Muskogee County Case No. CF-YO-2010-2 is AFFIRMED. This matter is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to treat Appellant as a Youthful Offender if convicted of the charged offense. The portion of the District Court’s written order granting the State’s motion to sentence Appellant as an adult is REVERSED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2011), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 10A O.S.Supp.2010 §§ 2-5-202(A)(1)(b) and 2-5-206(B)(6)
2. 10A O.S.Supp.2010 § 2-5-205
3. J.D.P. v. State, 1999 OK CR 5, I 6, 989 P.2d 948, 949
4. W.C.P. v. State, 1990 OK CR 24, I 9, 791 P.2d 97, 100
5. C.L.F. U. State, 1999 OK CR 12, I 5, 70 OBJ 946, 946 (Okl.Cr. 1999)
6. 10A O.S.Supp. $2-5-208.D.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-202(A)(1)(b) - Youthful Offender Provisions
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-205 - Certification for Treatment as a Juvenile
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-206(B)(6) - Certification for Treatment as a Juvenile
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-208.D - Imposition of Adult Sentence

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:

• J.D.P. v. State, 1999 OK CR 5, I 6, 989 P.2d 948, 949
• W.C.P. v. State, 1990 OK CR 24, I 9, 791 P.2d 97, 100
• C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, I 5, 70 OBJ 946, 946