Delinquency Petition Archives

J-2014-0646

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 23, 2014
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2014-0646, D.S.C. appealed his conviction for lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order adjudicating him as a delinquent child and remand the case for further proceedings. One justice dissented. D.S.C., who was born on September 17, 1997, had been charged with two counts of lewd or indecent acts, and a petition was filed on December 21, 2012. His trial occurred without a jury on July 9, 2014, and the decision was made to find him delinquent, meaning that the court said he had committed an act that is considered wrong for a child of his age. D.S.C. appealed this decision, arguing that he had been denied a right to a jury trial. He claimed that he agreed to waive his jury trial as part of a deal to enter a sex offender program, which he did not end up getting into. Because he could not start or complete this program, he felt that he should not have waived his right to a jury trial. He believed that the deal between him and the State was unfair because it was not fulfilled, and therefore, the agreement should not hold. The court agreed with D.S.C. and pointed out that he had the right to demand a jury trial, which could only be waived under certain conditions. Since the conditions of the deal were not met, the waiver of the jury trial was not valid. This means that once the deal fell through, D.S.C. should have been given the chance to have a jury trial. Because of this ruling, the court decided to reverse the earlier decision that found D.S.C. delinquent and send it back to the lower court so that it can be handled differently. Since the court found this issue important, they did not see a need to discuss the other claims D.S.C. made in his appeal. Therefore, the outcome focused on the jury trial right, leading to the decision that he deserved another chance to have a trial with a jury.

J-2010-653

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 1, 2010
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2010-653, the appellant appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including arson and assault on a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the juvenile court's order certifying the appellant as an adult. Two justices dissented. The appellant, who was around seventeen-and-a-half years old at the time of the incidents, faced serious charges, including arson and endangering human life. The state wanted to treat him as an adult, and a judge agreed to this on June 25, 2010. However, the appellant's defense argued that the state did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support this decision. During the appeal, the court examined whether the evidence justified treating the appellant as an adult. The judges noted that the law allows for such decisions only in exceptional cases, where a child is deemed not able to benefit from rehabilitation provided in juvenile programs. The appellant's side argued that he was receptive to treatment, as shown by his actions post-incident. He was receiving proper medical treatment after struggling with prescription medication and alcohol use, and he was advancing in his rehabilitation efforts. The justices found that the evidence presented showed the appellant was amenable to treatment and could be rehabilitated if kept within the juvenile system. The court emphasized that just because the acts committed were serious does not mean the child should be treated as an adult without proper evidence. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the reversal of the certification order, meaning the appellant should not be treated as an adult and should be retained in the juvenile system. The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the risks of letting the appellant remain a juvenile, suggesting that not treating him as an adult could endanger the community given the serious nature of his actions. They believed that the judge's original decision should have been upheld. In conclusion, the majority opinion favored rehabilitation over punishment as an adult, highlighting the importance of the juvenile justice system's focus on the potential for reform and supervision.

J-2004-149

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 23, 2004
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2004-149, a juvenile, referred to as #x, appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the juvenile court's order certifying #x as an adult for possession of methamphetamine but vacated the certification regarding possession of drug paraphernalia. The opinion was agreed upon by all judges, with none dissenting. The case starts with #x being about seventeen years old when he was charged with having methamphetamine and paraphernalia related to drugs. The state wanted to treat #x as an adult, so they asked the court to certify him. After a hearing, the judge decided that #x should indeed be tried as an adult for both charges. #x then appealed the decision, claiming several things were wrong. First, he believed the court made a mistake when it didn't throw out the evidence found on him. #x argued that this evidence was obtained through an unreasonable search, which is not allowed. However, the court found that the police officer had a good reason to search him because of how #x was acting. Thus, the court allowed the evidence to be used. Next, #x argued that the judge shouldn't have decided that he couldn’t be helped or rehabilitated in the juvenile system. The court looked at #x's history and found that he had been in trouble before, had problems with drugs, and was close to turning eighteen. Given these facts, the court agreed with the judge's decision to certify #x as an adult because they felt that #x might not improve in the juvenile system. Finally, #x claimed his lawyer didn’t help him properly, saying the lawyer should have asked for more time to prepare for the hearing and should have provided more evidence on his behalf. However, the court decided that #x did not show how this would have changed the outcome and that these claims were not enough to prove the lawyer was ineffective. In the end, the court decided to allow the charge of possession of methamphetamine to be treated as an adult crime, but they said that the charge for possession of drug paraphernalia should not be. Thus, they upheld part of the decision but overturned part of it too.