Chase v. State, F--73--264
| Decision Date | 26 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. F--73--264,F--73--264 |
| Parties | Frank CHASE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Cornish, Cornish & Wright, Inc., McAlester, for appellant.
Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Michael Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Frank Chase, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Pittsburg County, Case No. F--73--97, for the offense of Escape. Defendant, with counsel, waived jury trial, stipulated to the facts and was found guilty and sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment. A timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
The initial perliminary examination was held on this charge on March 27, 1973. At its conclusion, the case was ordered dismissed by the examining magistrate because the evidence presented by the State revealed that the presence of the defendant at the State Penitentiary was the result of a request by Muskogee County, Oklahoma, that he be held for 'safekeeping' rather than a commitment upon a valid judgment and sentence on conviction in a district court. This evidence was presented through the testimony of the Assistant Records Officer of the State Penitentiary. Subsequently, the District Attorney's office discovered, through the Assistant Records Officer, that the evidence presented at the initial preliminary examination was incorrect because of an error in the records of the State Penitentiary. In fact, it was discovered, the defendant was at the time of the alleged escape under the supervision of the Department of Corrections from the judgment and sentence of the District Court, Muskogee County, upon conviction of the crime of Kidnapping. Following the discovery of the error in the records, the State moved for permission to refile the charge. A hearing was held upon that motion before the same magistrate who had ordered the prior dismissal. At that hearing the Assistant Records Officer for the State Penitentiary testified that his previous testimony was incorrect as the result of an erroneous entry in the records. He stated that the error had originated in a misinterpretation of an order of this Court. At the conclusion of that hearing, the magistrate specifically determined that there was sufficient new evidence to overcome his prior ruling of dismissal and that the State had shown good cause why this evidence had not been acquired and introduced at the initial preliminary examination.
The sole issue for determination on appeal is whether the trial court was correct in permitting the State to refile this prosecution after dismissal at preliminary.
The defendant urges that following the adverse ruling of the magistrate, the State was limited in its remedy to the procedure set forth in Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 Okl.Stat.Ch. 18, App. (1972 supp.). Therefore, he argues, when the State failed to appeal the adverse ruling within five days and in the manner provided by Rule 6, the decision of the magistrate became final and the State was thereafter forever precluded from refiling the prosecution even upon a showing of new or additional evidence.
We cannot agree with defendant's contention because it is based upon a misinterpretation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richmond v. State
...a basis to hold the defendant for trial.'It would appear that the rule has created more problems than it stopped. See Chase v. State, Okl.Cr.1973, 517 P.2d 1142.3 A proceeding before an examining magistrate is not a judicial trial but merely a judicial inquiry and dismissal of a complaint i......
-
Stockwell v. State
...accused did not "escape," and later discover that there was, indeed, a valid commitment order holding him in custody, Chase v. State, 517 P.2d 1142 (Okla.Crim.App.1973); or the prosecutor might want to bring a charge of murder where the victim dies after the magistrate has bound the accused......
-
Walker v. Schneider
...under the Jones guidelines were alternate options for the state. Morgan v. State, 675 P.2d 473 (Okla.Crim.App.1984); Chase v. State, 517 P.2d 1142 (Okla.Crim.App.1973). Oklahoma thus allows the state to appeal an adverse determination on probable cause or to issue a new complaint if there i......
-
Coughlin v. Evans
...the court to grant a second preliminary hearing, "the State [must] clearly show that it has acquired 'new' evidence." Chase v. State, 517 P.2d 1142 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973) (citing Jones v. State, 481 P.2d 169 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971)). Generally, a decision by a trial court to remand comes w......