751 P.2d 755 (Okla.Crim.App. 1988), J-87-785, G.E.D. v. State
|Citation:||751 P.2d 755|
|Party Name:||G.E.D., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||March 07, 1988|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma|
An appeal from the District Court of Pittsburg County; Kirk B. Pyle, District Judge.
G.E.D., appellant, was charged as an adult for the offense of First Degree Burglary in the District Court of Pittsburg County, Case No. F-87-168. Appellant's motion to be certified as a child was denied by the court, and appellant appeals to this Court. AFFIRMED.
Scott W. Braden, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.
Dan L. Williamson, Pittsburg County Asst. Dist. Atty., McAlester, for appellee.
BRETT, Presiding Judge:
G.E.D., a sixteen-year-old appellant, was charged as an adult for the offense of First Degree Burglary in the District Court of Pittsburg County, Case No. F-87-168. Appellant's motion to be certified as a child under Oklahoma's Reverse Certification
Act, 10 O.S.1981, § 1104.2, was denied by the court, and appellant was bound over for trial as an adult. From this ruling, appellant appeals to this Court.
K.H. awoke late at night upon hearing a knocking at her front door. She answered the knock and found a boy later identified as appellant standing there. He asked K.H. to check her water to see if it was working because his family was having trouble with the water at their house. She complied with his request. Upon returning to the door, she observed appellant pushing at it trying to gain entrance. Appellant succeeded in his efforts, and once inside K.H.'s residence, he grabbed her and threw her onto the living room couch. He then jumped on top of her and threatened to cut her throat with a knife he was holding. K.H. calmed appellant down and talked him into leaving. She then called the police who escorted appellant and his mother to the police station for questioning. After being read the Miranda rights, appellant admitted to doing what K.H. reported, and both he and his mother signed statements introduced as evidence at the preliminary hearing.
For his first proposition of error, appellant contends that the court was without jurisdiction because appellant was not properly charged in the information to be considered an adult. He claims that the information must specifically charge one of the enumerated felonies in 10 O.S.1981, § 1104.2 in order...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP