S.M.W.B. v The State Of Oklahoma

J-2019-578

Filed: Jan. 2, 2020

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

S.M.W.B. appealed his conviction for five counts of Lewd or Indecent Acts To Child Under 12. The court upheld the conviction and sentence as an adult. Judge Kuehn dissented.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Caddo County denying Appellant's motion for certification as a juvenile and granting the State's motion for imposition of adult sentencing is AFFIRMED. The State's motion requesting permission to file a properly verified response brief is GRANTED and the Amended Response to Application for Accelerated Docket is ordered to be FILED by the Clerk of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying certification of S.M.W.B. as a juvenile?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting the State's motion to certify S.M.W.B. as an adult?

Findings

• the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying certification of S.M.W.B. as a juvenile
• the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the State's motion to certify S.M.W.B. as an adult

J-2019-578

Jan. 2, 2020

S.M.W.B.

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant was charged as a youthful offender in Caddo County District Court Case No. YO-2019-1 on February 13, 2019, with five counts of Lewd or Indecent Acts To Child Under 12. On March 28, 2019, the State filed a Motion to Impose an Adult Sentence pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. On April 3, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion for Certification to the Juvenile Justice System pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-206. On October 18, 2019, the State filed a motion requesting permission to file a properly verified response brief and tendered for filing an Amended Response to Application for Accelerated Docket with the Clerk of this Court. Following a hearing, the Honorable David Stephens, Special Judge, denied Appellant’s motion and granted the State’s motion.

From this order Appellant appeals, raising the following issues:
1. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING CERTIFICATION OF S.M.W.B. AS A JUVENILE; and
2. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING APPELLEE’S MOTION TO CERTIFY AS AN ADULT.

Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), this appeal was automatically assigned to the accelerated docket of this Court. Oral argument was held November 21, 2019, pursuant to Rule 11.2(E). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court. After a review of the record before this Court and hearing oral argument, we find the record does not support the propositions of error raised by Appellant. The question before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion for certification as a juvenile and granting the State’s motion to impose adult sentencing.

The hearing was a combined preliminary hearing and juvenile certification hearing that took place on two different days: May 8, 2019, and July 30, 2019. An “abuse of discretion” has been 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. A.R.M. U. State, 2011 OK CR 25, I 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799. Appellant argues that both the denial of his motion and the granting of the State’s motion were an abuse of discretion. By operation of law, the accused is treated as a youthful offender and the burden to sustain these motions is on the respective parties. G.G. U. State, 1999 OK CR 7, I 12, 989 P.2d 936, 939; 10A O.S.Supp.2018, §§ 2-5-206(A)(9), (F)(1)(b); 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209(B)(1). Judge Stephens considered the criteria dictated by Sections 2-5-206 and 2-5-208 of Title 10A and the record is more than sufficient to support his decision. The record does not support Appellant’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion.

DECISION
The order of the District Court of Caddo County denying Appellant’s motion for certification as a juvenile and granting the State’s motion for imposition of adult sentencing is AFFIRMED. The State’s motion requesting permission to file a properly verified response brief is GRANTED and the Amended Response to Application for Accelerated Docket is ordered to be FILED by the Clerk of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 1 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208.
2. 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-206.
3. A.R.M. U. State, 2011 OK CR 25, I 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799.
4. G.G. U. State, 1999 OK CR 7, I 12, 989 P.2d 936, 939.
5. 10A O.S.Supp.2018, §§ 2-5-206(A)(9), (F)(1)(b).
6. 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-209(B)(1).
7. Rule 11.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019).
8. Rule 11.2(E), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
9. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.1 18, App. (2019).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-208 - Motion to Impose Adult Sentence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-206 - Motion for Certification to Juvenile Justice System
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-206(A)(9) - Criteria for Certification
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-209(B)(1) - Burden of Proof

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.