CLF v. State, No. J-98-1356.

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Citation1999 OK CR 12,989 P.2d 945
Docket NumberNo. J-98-1356.
PartiesC.L.F., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Decision Date16 March 1999

989 P.2d 945
1999 OK CR 12

C.L.F., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee

No. J-98-1356.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 16, 1999.


989 P.2d 946
ACCELERATED DOCKET ORDER

¶ 1 Appellant, born January 10, 1984, was charged August 10, 1998, as an adult with one count of First Degree Murder in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-98-4048. On September 17, 1998, Appellant, by and through counsel, filed a motion for certification as a juvenile or in the alternative, as a youthful offender. Following a certification hearing November 13, 1998, the Honorable Sarah Day Smith, Special Judge, denied Appellant's motion. Appellant appeals from the denial of her motion for certification as a child or as a youthful offender.

¶ 2 On appeal Appellant raised three propositions of error:

1. The finding of the Special Judge is contrary to the purpose of the Youthful Offender Act and an abuse of her discretion.
2. The Special Judge erred and abused her discretion in denying the [Appellant's] motion to certify her as a juvenile or as a youthful offender where the juvenile met the criteria, with no evidence to support her remaining in the adult system.
3. The Special Judge erred when she allowed the State to amend their Amended Information after the [Appellant] stipulated without objection to being a youthful offender.

¶ 3 Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (1997), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. The propositions were presented to this Court in oral argument February 25, 1999, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court.

¶ 4 At age 14.8, years Appellant was presumed to be an adult when she was charged with Murder in the First Degree. See 10 O.S.Supp.1997, § 7306-2.5(A). It was, therefore, Appellant's burden to overcome that presumption and to prove she should be certified as either a child or as a youthful offender. See J.D.P. v. State, 1999 OK CR 5, ¶ 6, 989 P.2d 948; Compare Williams v. State, 1991 OK CR 28, ¶ 19, 807 P.2d 271, 275. In this case, the entirety of the evidence presented to the trial court was that, while this was a very serious offense, the public could be protected and that Appellant is amenable to rehabilitation. The State did not present evidence that contradicted those facts. The evidence presented was more than sufficient to rebut the presumption that Appellant should be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Miller v. State, No. D–2008–1206.
    • United States
    • Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 6, 2013
    ...conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented.” C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. Respecting the exercise of that discretion, the prevailing law in capital cases, at least until today, has been very clear. [313 P.3d 10......
  • Knapper v. State, Case No. F-2017-223
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 20, 2020
    ...burden to overcome this presumption and prove he or she should be certified as a youthful offender. C.L.F. v. State , 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 4, 989 P.2d 945, 946. In order to demonstrate youthful offender status, the district court must consider a statutorily-delineated list of seven factors with......
  • Sanchez v. State, No. D-2006-627.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 14, 2009
    ...conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, ¶ 59 Evidence tending to establish that Appellant owned shoes with a sole design similar to shoe prints found near a murdered girl, from whose......
  • Underwood v. State , No. D–2008–319.
    • United States
    • Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • March 25, 2011
    ...¶ 2, 960 P.2d 368, 369). See also Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46, ¶ 60, 147 P.3d 245, 263 ( citing C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 947); Slaughter v. State, 1997 OK CR 78, ¶ 19, 950 P.2d 839, 848–849 ( citing R.J.D. v. State, 799 P.2d 1122, 1125 (Okl.Cr.1990)) ( quoting......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Miller v. State, No. D–2008–1206.
    • United States
    • Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 6, 2013
    ...conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented.” C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. Respecting the exercise of that discretion, the prevailing law in capital cases, at least until today, has been very clear. [313 P.3d 10......
  • Knapper v. State, Case No. F-2017-223
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 20, 2020
    ...burden to overcome this presumption and prove he or she should be certified as a youthful offender. C.L.F. v. State , 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 4, 989 P.2d 945, 946. In order to demonstrate youthful offender status, the district court must consider a statutorily-delineated list of seven factors with......
  • Sanchez v. State, No. D-2006-627.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • December 14, 2009
    ...conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, ¶ 59 Evidence tending to establish that Appellant owned shoes with a sole design similar to shoe prints found near a murdered girl, from whose......
  • Underwood v. State , No. D–2008–319.
    • United States
    • Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • March 25, 2011
    ...¶ 2, 960 P.2d 368, 369). See also Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46, ¶ 60, 147 P.3d 245, 263 ( citing C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 947); Slaughter v. State, 1997 OK CR 78, ¶ 19, 950 P.2d 839, 848–849 ( citing R.J.D. v. State, 799 P.2d 1122, 1125 (Okl.Cr.1990)) ( quoting......
  • 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