J. M. F. v. State

• Decision Date: 02 August 2018
• Docket Number: Case Number: J-2018-0278
• Parties: J. M. F., Appellant v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

427 P.3d 154

J. M. F., Appellant
v.
The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

Case Number: J-2018-0278

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Decided: August 2, 2018

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

JARROD STEVENSON, THOMAS GRIESEDIECK, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 903 N.W. 13th STREET, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73106, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

JANET BROWN, COLLEEN GALAVIZ, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, DISTRICT NO. 7, 5905 N. CLASSEN CT., STE. 301, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

DANNY JOSEPH, SARAH MACNIVEN, APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL, OKLAHOMA INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM, P. O. BOX 926, NORMAN, OK 73070, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

JANET BROWN, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DISTRICT NO. 7, 5905 N. CLASSEN CT., STE. 301, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

SUMMARY OPINION

KUEHN, JUDGE:

¶1 A Delinquency Petition was filed on January 23, 2017, charging Appellant, J. M. F., age thirteen, with two counts of Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen, pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp. 2015, § 1123(A)(2), in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. JDL-2017-1. Following a December 2017 trial, the jury found Appellant delinquent on the first count and not delinquent on the second count. The Honorable Cassandra Williams, Special Judge, adjudicated Appellant delinquent pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp. 2014, § 2-2-402. Appellant appeals from the order adjudicating him a delinquent child. 10A O.S.2011, § 2-2-601.

427 P.3d 155

¶2 Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(3), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals , Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2018), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. Oral argument was held June 21, 2018. Rule 11.2(E). As we find merit in Appellant's first proposition of error, the adjudication is reversed and remanded for a new trial on Count 1.

¶3 Appellant's first proposition of error argues he was denied due process of law when the trial judge broke sequestration over defense counsel's objection in violation of 22 O.S.2011, § 857. Section 857 directs:

After hearing the charge, the jury may either decide in court, or may retire for deliberation. If they do not agree without retiring, one or more officers must be sworn to keep them together in some private and convenient place, and not to permit any person to speak to or communicate with them, nor do so themselves, unless it be by order of the court, or to ask them whether they have agreed upon a

...