State Of Oklahoma v K. G. O.

F-2016-902

Filed: Dec. 21, 2017

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

# K.G.O. appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. Conviction and sentence reversed. Lewis, V.P.J. dissented. In this case, a young person named K.G.O., who was just 14 years old at the time he was accused of murder, wanted to be treated as a Youthful Offender instead of being tried as an adult. The court initially allowed this, but the State of Oklahoma disagreed and appealed the decision. The higher court reviewed the evidence and the judge's reasons for this decision. They found that the judge had made a mistake by not having enough clear evidence to support why K.G.O. should be treated as a youthful offender instead of an adult. They decided to reverse the earlier decision, meaning that K.G.O. would be treated as an adult for his crime. One judge, Lewis, disagreed with this decision and thought K.G.O. should still be considered as a youthful offender.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Craig County granting the motion to certify Appellee as a Youthful Offender is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2017), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence presented to support Appellee's certification as a Youthful Offender?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting the motion for certification as a Youthful Offender?
• Was priority properly given to the first three guidelines in determining Appellee's status?
• Did the trial court's findings support the conclusion that Appellee met his burden by a preponderance of the evidence?
• Should the presumption that Appellee be treated as an adult have been overridden?

Findings

• the court erred in sustaining Appellee's motion for certification as a Youthful Offender
• sufficient evidence was not found to support Judge Gore's ruling
• the findings for each criteria do not support the conclusion that Appellee met his burden by a preponderance of the evidence
• the presumption that Appellee be treated as an adult was not overridden
• the order of the District Court of Craig County granting the motion to certify Appellee as a Youthful Offender is reversed and remanded

F-2016-902

Dec. 21, 2017

State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

K. G. O.

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellee, K. G. O., born January 29, 2001, was charged August 25, 2016, as an adult in Craig County District Court Case No. CF-2016-174 with Murder in the First Degree, 21 O.S. § 701.7(A). Appellee’s motion for certification as a Youthful Offender was granted by the Honorable Rebecca J. Gore, Special Judge, on August 25, 2017. The State appeals and seeks reversal of the ruling sustaining Appellee’s motion to certify him as a Youthful Offender thereby reinstating the statutorily presumed adult status of Appellee and adult sentencing pursuant to 10A O.S. § 2-5-205(A) and 21 O.S. § 701.9.

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. (2017). Oral argument was held December 7, 2017, before the Court en banc. At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court. The State’s sole proposition of error on appeal is that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion to certify Appellee as a Youthful Offender because Appellee failed to produce sufficient evidence entitled to Youthful Offender status and sentencing.

At age fourteen years, eight months, Appellee was presumed to be an adult when this crime was committed. See 10A O.S.2011, § 2-5-205(A) (Any person thirteen (13) or fourteen (14) years of age who is charged with murder in the first degree shall be held accountable for the act as if the person were an adult; provided, the person may be certified as a youthful offender or a juvenile as provided by this section.) Appellee was charged as an adult in this matter and subsequently filed a motion for certification as a Youthful Offender.

At the reverse certification hearing, it is Appellee’s burden to overcome the presumption and to prove that he should be certified as either a child or as a youthful offender. C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, IT 4, 989 P.2d 945. Title 10A O.S.2011, § 2-5-205(E), directs that when ruling on a motion for certification as a youthful offender or juvenile, the court shall consider seven guidelines¹ with greatest weight to be given to the first three listed.

1. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner;
2. Whether the offense was against persons, and, if personal injury resulted, the degree of personal injury;
3. The record and past history of the accused person, including previous contacts with law enforcement agencies and juvenile or criminal courts, prior periods of probation and commitments to juvenile institutions;
4. The sophistication and maturity of the accused person and the capability of distinguishing right from wrong as determined by consideration of the person’s psychological evaluation, home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living;
5. The prospects for adequate protection of the public if the accused person is processed through the youthful offender system or the juvenile system;
6. The reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation of the accused person if such person is found to have committed the alleged offense, by the use of procedures and facilities currently available to the juvenile court; and
7. Whether the offense occurred while the accused person was escaping or on escape status from an institution for youthful offenders or delinquent children.

Absent abuse of discretion, the judge, 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, II 16, 799 P.2d 1122. 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.

Granting Appellee’s motion for certification as a Youthful Offender in this case was an abuse of discretion. Sufficient evidence was not found in this record to support Judge Gore’s ruling that priority was given to the first three guidelines. Further, Judge Gore’s findings for each criteria in Section 2-5-205(E) do not support her conclusion that Appellee met his burden by a preponderance of the evidence. We find in this record a lack of evidence to support overriding the presumption that Appellee be treated as an adult.

DECISION
The order of the District Court of Craig County granting the motion to certify Appellee as a Youthful Offender is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order.

Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2017), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
ANTHONY J. EVANS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
210 WEST DELAWARE
VINITA, OKLAHOMA 74301
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
ANTHONY J. EVANS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ROGERS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
200 S. LYNN RIGGS BVLD.
CLAREMORE, OKLAHOMA 74017
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

DANIEL GIRALDI
ATTORNEY AT LAW
177 W. DELAWARE
P.O. BOX 926
VINITA, OKLAHOMA 74301
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

AIREL PARRY
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73070
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, V.P.J.: DISSENT
KUEHN, J.: CONCUR
ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR

LEWIS, V.P.J, DISSENTING: I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion and would affirm the order of the trial court certifying Appellee as a youthful offender.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner;
2. Whether the offense was against persons, and, if personal injury resulted, the degree of personal injury;
3. The record and past history of the accused person, including previous contacts with law enforcement agencies and juvenile or criminal courts, prior periods of probation and commitments to juvenile institutions;
4. The sophistication and maturity of the accused person and the capability of distinguishing right from wrong as determined by consideration of the person's psychological evaluation, home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living;
5. The prospects for adequate protection of the public if the accused person is processed through the youthful offender system or the juvenile system;
6. The reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation of the accused person if such person is found to have committed the alleged offense, by the use of procedures and facilities currently available to the juvenile court;
7. Whether the offense occurred while the accused person was escaping or on escape status from an institution for youthful offenders or delinquent children.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7(A) - Murder in the First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-205(A) - Certification as a Youthful Offender
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.9 - Youthful Offender Sentencing
• Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-205(E) - Guidelines for Certification

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
• R.J.D. v. State, 1990 OK CR 68, II 16, 799 P.2d 1122
• A.R.M. v. State, 2011 OK CR 25, 7, 279 P.3d 797