State Of Oklahoma v M. W.

JS 2018-0917

Filed: Jan. 3, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: M. W.

Summary

M. W. appealed his conviction for rape and sexual battery. Conviction and sentence were affirmed. Judge Rowland dissented.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Tulsa County granting the motion to certify Appellee as a Juvenile is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2018), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was the trial court's reliance on the amount of time available for Appellee to complete treatment and rehabilitation erroneous?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion by relying on an erroneous and unsupported factual recitation of events?

Findings

• the trial court did not err in granting the motion to certify Appellee as a Juvenile
• the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the evidence presented
• the order of the District Court of Tulsa County is affirmed

JS 2018-0917

Jan. 3, 2019

State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

M. W.

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE:

Appellee, M. W., born January 4, 2001, was charged February 16, 2018, as a Youthful Offender in Tulsa County District Court Case No. YO-2018-0009 with Count 1 – Rape, First Degree, and Count 2 – Sexual Battery. Appellee’s motion for certification as a Juvenile was granted by the Honorable James W. Keeley, Special Judge, on August 29, 2018. The State appeals and seeks reversal of the ruling sustaining Appellee’s motion to certify him as a Juvenile pursuant to 10A O.S. § 2-5-206(F). This appeal was assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court pursuant to Rule 11.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2018). Oral argument was held December 13, 2018, before the Court en banc. At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court.

The State argued that (1) the trial court erroneously relied primarily on the amount of time available for Appellee to complete the treatment and rehabilitation as a Youthful Offender when reaching his decision on reverse certification; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by relying upon an erroneous and unsupported factual recitation of events. At the reverse certification hearing, it is Appellee’s burden to overcome the presumption and to prove that he should be certified as a child. C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 4, 989 P.2d 945, 946. Title 10A O.S. 2011, § 2-5-206(F), directs that when ruling on a motion for certification to the juvenile justice system, the court shall consider seven guidelines¹ with greatest weight to be given to the first three listed. Absent an abuse of discretion, the judge, as trier of fact, has the discretion and the prerogative to assess the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh and value their testimony and opinions. R.J.D. v. State, 1990 OK CR 68, ¶ 16, 799 P.2d 1122, 1125. 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. A.R.M. v. State, 2011 OK CR 25, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799. As set forth in W.D.C. v. State, 1990 OK CR 71, ¶ 8, 799 P.2d 143, 145, our duty on appellate review is not to conduct our own weighing de novo, but to determine whether the decision of the Magistrate is supported by the law and facts of the case. In this case we do not find an abuse of discretion.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Tulsa County granting the motion to certify Appellee as a Juvenile is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2018), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY THE HONORABLE JAMES KEELEY, SPECIAL JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

KENNETH A. ELMORE
ASST DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TULSA COUNTY
500 S. DENVER AVE.
SUITE 900
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

ALLEN M. SMALLWOOD
1310 SOUTH DENVER AVE.
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74119
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.

LEWIS, P.J.: Concur
KUEHN, V.P.J.: Concur
HUDSON, J.: Concur
ROWLAND, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. ¹ 10A O.S. § 2-5-206(F).
2. ² R.J.D. v. State, 1990 OK CR 68, ¶ 16, 799 P.2d 1122, 1125.
3. ³ A.R.M. v. State, 2011 OK CR 25, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799.
4. 4 W.D.C. v. State, 1990 OK CR 71, ¶ 8, 799 P.2d 143, 145.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-206 (2011) - Certification to Juvenile Justice System
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 11.2 (2018) - Accelerated Docket
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2018) - Mandate
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Rape, First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 (2011) - Sexual Battery

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, I 4, 989 P.2d 945, 946
• R.J.D. v. State, 1990 OK CR 68, I 16, 799 P.2d 1122, 1125
• A.R.M. v. State, 2011 OK CR 25, I 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799
• W.D.C. v. State, 1990 OK CR 71, II 8, 799 P.2d 143, 145