Dutton v. City of Midwest City

Decision Date30 June 2015
Docket Number113,170.
Citation353 P.3d 532,2015 OK 51
PartiesRodney DUTTON, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF MIDWEST CITY, and The State of Oklahoma, Respondents.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Rodney Dutton, Midwest City, OK, Petitioner Pro se.

David F. Howell and J. Steven Coates, Midwest City, OK, for Respondent, City of Midwest City.

Opinion

EDMONDSON, J.

¶ 1 We assume original jurisdiction on the question whether this Court has original jurisdiction to adjudicate both the merits of the claim or cause of action that the Dutton (or Petitioner) has pled in this Court and the associated remedies he requests. We decline to assume original jurisdiction on either the merits of Dutton's cause of action or his requests for relief as pled by him in this Court.

¶ 2 Dutton pleads a cause of action challenging the correctness of a judgment and sentence in three municipal criminal matters. He seeks an adjudication on the legal correctness of these judgments and sentences in this proceeding, and in the alternative he requests an extraordinary remedy to compel the District Court to provide him a direct appeal of his municipal criminal convictions in the District Court. We conclude that the pled cause of action and remedy sought by him involve criminal matters that are not within the original jurisdiction of this Court. We conclude that Dutton's action in this Court should be dismissed without prejudice to him seeking appropriate relief in the proper court.

I. Pleadings of Dutton and The City of Midwest City

¶ 3 Dutton alleges that on April 15, 2013, he was convicted in the municipal court of the City of Midwest City, Oklahoma, of the charges of assault, public intoxication, and domestic assault and battery. He states that he was sentenced to thirty days in jail. He states that he was incarcerated for a felony charge on November 24, 2011, which was ultimately dismissed, and he “was released on his own recognizance on about March 7, 2013,” and then transferred to the Midwest City jail for trial on his municipal charges. He alleges that he was released from the Midwest City jail on May 10, 2013. He states that while he was incarcerated on the felony charge he was represented by a public defender.”

¶ 4 He states that he filed three applications for post-conviction relief in the District Court after his release. He alleges that the District Court dismissed the applications for the reason that they should have been filed with the municipal court in Midwest City. His application for this Court to assume original jurisdiction was filed on August 29, 2014, approximately one year and three months after his release.

¶ 5 Dutton alleges that he was denied his rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He states that he was denied counsel at trial and was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. He alleges that he was denied his rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He states that he was denied (1) advance notice of the municipal charges against him, (2) a fair trial due to insufficient evidence, and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, (3) counsel for an appeal, (4) a direct appeal, (5) “out-of-time appeal,” (6) an adequate post-conviction remedy, and (7) counsel for a post-conviction appeal. In his filing herein entitled Motion to Provide Relief,” he alleges that he was “denied his 6th and 14th Amendments rights to counsel and a fair trial and subsequently denied his right to an appeal of wrongful convictions by the city of Midwest City, Oklahoma.”

¶ 6 Dutton alleges that shortly prior to his trial in municipal court he was provided with a written notice of one of the charges against him. He states that the judge refused his request to have a lawyer appointed for him. He states that after the City's prosecutor failed to appear for his trial, the judge questioned the witnesses and refused Dutton's request to cross-examine the witnesses.

¶ 7 Dutton alleges that the District Court of Oklahoma County:

... has delayed and denied the Petitioner in his pursuit of relief in this matter ... and while “the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals provide him some relief at first and then declined to hear his appeal when the court reporter or court clerk failed to provide him a stamp-filed certified copy of the District Court's order dismissing two of his three post-conviction applications under the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals own rules.

Application to Assume, Aug. 29, 2014, at pg. 2, material omitted.

Dutton's appendix of exhibits, and his other filings in this Court, fail to contain photocopies of any the orders allegedly issued by the District Court of Oklahoma County about which he complains. He alleges that he sought relief in the District Court by filing applications for post-conviction relief pursuant to Oklahoma's Post–Conviction Procedure Act, 22 O.S.2011 §§ 1080 –1089.

¶ 8 Dutton's Appendix does contain purported uncertified photocopies of orders issued by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Three orders, which show docket designations for post-conviction appeals, state that the Court of Criminal Appeals declines jurisdiction and dismisses the matters because Dutton failed to attach to his petition in error a certified copy of the District Court order being appealed, as required by the rules for the Court of Criminal Appeals.1

¶ 9 Dutton's Appendix also contains a purported photocopy of an order of the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissing his motion for the court to reconsider “declining jurisdiction of his post-conviction appeals from Oklahoma County.” The court explains that a petition for rehearing that challenges the court's decision in post-conviction appeal is not allowed.

¶ 10 Midwest City's response states that Dutton's allegations relate to three different factual episodes resulting in a criminal prosecution for assault and battery on his wife, prosecutions for assault on a police officer and public intoxication, and then an arrest for felony possession of incendiary devices. He was released from jail, awaiting trial on the felony charge, and returned to the municipal jail for prosecution of the misdemeanors.

¶ 11 The response states that Dutton and his wife filed two civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and claimed that his constitutional rights were violated by Midwest City and its officials in the context of Dutton's arrests, convictions, and sentence of incarceration. The federal court's order dismissing, in part, Dutton's claims lists the violations of constitutional rights as alleged by Dutton and his wife in the federal proceeding.

Mr. Dutton's claims, construed liberally because of his pro se status, appear to be as follows: 1) a First Amendment violation, based upon an alleged retaliation for the comment he made while leaving the courtroom [“I'll see you in federal court.”]; 2) a Fourth Amendment claim, based on his arrest and prosecution without probable cause; 3) denial of due process, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; 4) denial of assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment; 5) an Eighth Amendment claim, based on failure to protect him from abuse by a fellow inmate; and 6) false imprisonment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, both plaintiffs assert First and Fourteenth Amendment claims for loss of consortium and violation of their “right to pursue life and happiness together in their marriage and individually without wrongful interference by officials of [the] government.”

Order, Jan. 31, 2014, at p. 3, Rodney Dutton and Shirley Dutton v. City of Midwest City, et al., No. CIV–13–0911–HE, 2014 WL 348982, U.S. Dist. Crt., W.D. Okla., (explanation added).

The federal court concluded that the plaintiffs could not bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action based upon allegations of an unconstitutional conviction when state law provided a means for challenging the conviction.2 Midwest City states that Dutton's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit was determined by that court to be premature due to Dutton's claims still pending before the federal District Court. Midwest City states that Dutton's claims against it remain pending in the federal court. Midwest City's appendix filed herein also contains uncertified photocopies of two orders by The District Court of Oklahoma County dismissing, without prejudice, Dutton's applications for post-conviction relief.

¶ 12 Dutton filed a reply to the city's response. He states his innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted. He argues: (1) his municipal arrest was illegal, (2) the trial in the municipal court was not fair because he was not provided with an attorney, and (3) his municipal convictions are void because no record exists of the evidence used against him at the municipal trial. He also objects to the appearances made in this proceeding by two attorneys who filed a response for Midwest City. He requests that this Court “dismiss” these two attorneys from this proceeding.

¶ 13 In his reply, Dutton requests this Court adjudicate his convictions to be “invalid, null, and void” and to also grant the relief as set forth in his Application filed with this Court. In his Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction, he requests an order of this Court directing the District Court of Oklahoma County “provide him a direct appeal with appointed counsel from Midwest City Municipal Cases docketed as # 2011–4369—Domestic Violence, # 2011–5808—public intoxication, and # 2011–5808—assault and/or any other relief that is appropriately just.”3 Dutton also states he seeks an order “overturning, vacating, and barring” the municipal convictions, or alternatively the Court provide him with a direct appeal of his convictions in the District Court with appointed counsel.4

II. The Court's Original Supervisory Civil Jurisdiction

¶ 14 This Court issued an order and requested Midwest City brief the issue whether this Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims made by Petitioner.5 The city's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • State v. Rivero
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 2, 2021
    ...opportunity for a party to put in issue legal claims for adjudication is part of fundamental fairness). 17. Dutton v. City of Midwest City, 2015 OK 51, ¶ 16, 353 P.3d 532, 539. See, e.g., Krosmico v. Pettit, 1998 OK 90, ¶ 23, 968 P.2d 345, 351 ("the pleadings invoked the equitable cognizanc......
  • Payne v. Kerns
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 12, 2020
    ...... See Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters, Inc. v. City of Norman, 2016 OK 119, ¶¶12-13, 390 P.3d 689 ; Hough v. Leonard, ...13 Dutton v. City of Midwest City , 2015 OK 51, ¶31, 353 P.3d 532. 14 ......
  • State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision, v. Rivero
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 2, 2021
    ...... Attorney General, Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee, State of Oklahoma, ex rel., the ...17 Dutton v. City of Midwest City , 2015 OK 51, ¶ 16, 353 P.3d 532, 539. See , ......
  • Young v. Station 27, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 12, 2017
    ......Decided: September 12, 2017 Bob Burke and Tom Cummings, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Jo Anne Deaton and Denelda R. ...86, 394 P.3d at 1245, citing Dutton v. City of Midwest City , 2015 OK 51, n. 69, 353 P.3d 532 (partial ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT