Bednar v. District Court of Kay County, PR 2002-1310

• Decision Date: 26 November 2002
• Docket Number: PR 2002-1311.,No. PR 2002-1310,PR 2002-1310
• Citation: 60 P.3d 1,2002 OK CR 41
• Parties: James D. BEDNAR, Executive Director, Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF KAY COUNTY, Oklahoma, The Hon. Douglas C. Revard, Special Judge, and Mark Gibson, District Attorney, Kay County, Oklahoma, Respondents.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

60 P.3d 1

2002 OK CR 41

James D. BEDNAR, Executive Director, Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF KAY COUNTY, Oklahoma, The Hon. Douglas C. Revard, Special Judge, and Mark Gibson, District Attorney, Kay County, Oklahoma, Respondents.

Nos. PR 2002-1310, PR 2002-1311.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

November 26, 2002.

ORDER DENYING EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND LIFTING STAY EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 6, 2002, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAY COUNTY, DISTRICT COURT CASE NOS. CF 2001-354, CF-2001-140, CF-2002-116, CM-2000-240, CM-2002-225 AND TR-2002-980

¶ 1 On October 25, 2002, Petitioner James B. Bednar, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, by and through Craig Sutter, Deputy Executive Director of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System (OIDS), filed two applications for extraordinary writs, PR XXXX-XXXX and PR XXXX-XXXX, entitled "Emergency Application Requesting Immediate Stay of District Court Contempt Proceedings." In both cases Petitioner also filed a "Petition For Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus Prohibiting Any Further Contempt Proceedings Against Petitioner and Directing Dismissal of the Pending Contempt Proceedings Against Petitioner and Brief in Support Which Order was Entered on October 23, 2002, by the Honorable Douglas C. Revard, Special District sic Judge of Kay County, Oklahoma."

¶ 2 OIDS states that on October 23, 2002, Judge Revard held Mr. Bednar in contempt of court for failing to provide counsel to the defendant in District Court Case No. CF-2002-354 in Writ PR XXXX-XXXX¹ and in CF-2001-140, CF-2002-116, CM-2000-240, CM-2002-225 and TR-2002-980 in Writ PR XXXX-XXXX, and directed the District Attorney to issue a contempt citation. Mr. Bednar was ordered to appear for an initial appearance on November 4, 2002, at 1:00 p.m. before the District Court. OIDS sought an immediate stay of the contempt proceedings in the District Court while this Court considers the petitions for extraordinary relief "because of the substantial harm the contempt proceedings pose to Mr. Bednar and the operation of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, and because of the magnitude of the constitutional, statutory and ethical questions raised by the District Court's actions." OIDS contends "the District Court's actions constitute a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine and constitute excessive and unauthorized application of judicial force." Mr. Bednar states that he is "unable to comply with the District Court's order, as to do so would violate provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, state purchasing laws and the penal code."

¶ 3 OIDS raised the following propositions in its applications:

1. The judiciary cannot compel James D. Bednar, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, through contempt proceedings, to provide conflict counsel representation when the agency is no longer funded to do so.

2. OIDS cannot contract for the services of new conflict counsel with no unencumbered funds available to pay under such contract.

OIDS seeks a writ of prohibition "precluding the District Court from entertaining any further contempt proceedings against him and prohibiting the District Attorney from further prosecuting said contempt proceedings." OIDS further seeks a writ of mandamus "directing both the District Court and the District Attorney to dismiss the contempt citation with prejudice and vacate the order holding Mr. Bednar in contempt and directing the filing of the contempt citation."

¶ 4 In an Order issued October 28, 2002, further contempt proceedings in the District Court of Kay County against James D. Bednar, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, were STAYED. The Respondents were directed to file a response to Petitioner's applications. The response, prepared and filed by and through Brant M. Elmore, Assistant Attorney General,² was filed in this Court November 7, 2002.

¶ 5 The State argued the following propositions:

1. The Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner has failed to properly invoke the authority and jurisdiction of this Court.

2. Alternatively, the District Court of Kay County can lawfully hold Petitioner in contempt for failing to appear and/or for failing to perform his statutory duty to defend indigent criminal defendants under 22 O.S.2001, § 1355.7.

3. Alternatively, OIDS is not being compelled to contract with new conflict counsel without unencumbered funds available to pay under said contract.

4. Alternatively, the Local Court Fund Board is prohibited from providing the funds for conflict counsel.

5. In the event that this Court does not dismiss the Petition, Respondent requests oral argument.

The State concluded Petitioner "has wholly failed to provide representation, despite the fact that the Legislature has clearly established that he is to provide representation in contract attorney conflict situations", and that "Petitioner has wholly failed to comply with § 1355.7." The State also concluded that Petitioner "has failed to comply with the District Court's order that he provide representation" and that the "proper determination as to whether these acts are willful and constitute indirect contempt of court is for the jury that will be seated at Petitioner's trial." Respondent asserts that "neither Petitioner nor the courts of this State can rewrite Petitioner's statutory duties or relegislate OIDS' funding."

¶ 6 Oral argument was heard in this matter November 25, 2002. Mr. Bednar appeared on his own behalf and Brant M. Elmore appeared on behalf of Respondent.

¶ 7 For a writ of prohibition Petitioner must establish: (1) a court, officer or person has or is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of said power is unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of said power will result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy. Rule 10.6(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2002). For a writ of mandamus, Petitioner has the burden of establishing (1) he has a clear legal right to the relief sought; (2) the respondent's refusal to perform a plain legal duty not involving the exercise of discretion; and (3) the adequacy of mandamus and the inadequacy of other relief. Rule 10.6(B).

¶ 8 Petitioner has not met the burden for extraordinary relief. OIDS' reliance upon Fields v. Driesel, 1997 OK CR 33, 941 P.2d 1000, is misplaced. Fields is not applicable to the facts of this case. The contempt proceedings against OIDS are not...