Dancy v. Owens

• Decision Date: 19 July 1927
• Docket Number: Case Number: 18502
• Citation: 1927 OK 203,126 Okla. 37,258 P. 879
• Parties: DANCY, Sheriff, v. OWENS.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1927 OK 203

258 P. 879

126 Okla. 37

DANCY, Sheriff, v. OWENS.

Case Number: 18502

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: July 19, 1927

Syllabus

¶0 1. Syllabi Adopted. The syllabus in the case of State ex rel. Attorney General v. Davenport et al., 125 Okla. 1, 256 P. 340, and the syllabus in the case of State ex rel. Attorney General v. Martin, 125 Okla. 24, 256 P. 667, and the syllabus in the case of State ex rel. Attorney General v. Owens, 125 Okla. 66, 256 P. 704, are readopted as syllabus in the instant case.

2. Courts--Supreme Court as Head of State Judicial System. Under section 1, article 7, of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the head of the judicial system of the state. Other courts, established by law, are inferior to the Supreme Court of the state.

3. Same--Jurisdiction of Criminal Court of Appeals--Superintending Control of Supreme Court. Section 2, article 7, of the Constitution, grants permissive authority to the Legislature to establish a Criminal Court of Appeals. Under said section the jurisdiction of such court is confined to appeals in criminal cases from the trial courts. The decisions of the said Criminal Court of Appeals are final, but its judgments are limited to appeals in criminal cases and proceedings in aid thereof. Under said section, the Supreme Court is given superintending control of the Criminal Court of Appeals, and may issue any remedial writ named in said section 2, to keep the said court within the jurisdiction granted it by law.

4. Same--Other State Courts Without Jurisdiction to Override Judgments of Supreme Court. Neither the Constitution nor statutes of the state undertake to give any state court the power or jurisdiction to review, modify, override, or vacate the final judgment of the Supreme Court, under the guise of any writ or process, and the attempt of such court to do so is without authority of law, and its orders which, if effective, would so override, annul, and vacate the final order and judgment of this court are void, and must be so adjudged and decreed by this court when brought to it for review.

5. Same--Certiorari--Judgment of Criminal Court of Appeals Discharging Prisoner Committed by Supreme Court for Contempt Held Void. The opinion and judgment of the Criminal Court of Appeals, rendered in the case of O. O. Owens v. Ben B. Dancy, in cause No. A-6581, on the docket of said court, is properly here on certiorari. The said opinion and judgment is in excess of the jurisdiction of the said Criminal Court of Appeals, and void. The same is quashed, vacated, and set aside, and held for naught.

Everest, Vaught & Brewer, for petitioner.

BRANSON, C. J.

¶1 Certiorari was allowed herein. By reason thereof, the record in the case of O. O. Owens versus Ben B. Dancy, Sheriff of Oklahoma County, No. A-6581, on the docket of the Criminal Court of Appeals, is before this court, including the opinion of that court and the judgment entered by it. In the said cause the opinion concluded and the judgment ordered that the respondent sheriff release from custody the said O. O. Owens. Their legality, validity, and effect are here for review.

¶2 Can this court review on certiorari a judgment such as entered by that court? The answer thereto is not of the making of this court, but is found in the Constitution and the statutes of the state. The power of this court herein, if any, is a constitutional power. We must quote the basic law, and if that does not require our action, we cannot excuse ourselves for taking action.

The authority, jurisdiction, and power of the Honorable Criminal Court of Appeals is statutory,--or, to indulge in tautology, it is only what the Legislature gave it--within permissive sanction of the Constitution. This court is the only one known to the jurisprudence of the state charged with determining what that jurisdiction is--and we could not evade this duty if we would.

¶3 The opinion of the Honorable Criminal Court of Appeals comprises 127 typewritten pages. Few of the enunciations therein have any bearing upon whether its judgment and order was within legal sanction. Our references to these must be abbreviated, for it serves no useful purpose to meander with the intemperate and rude statements found therein. Certiorari is a means of review by a superior court of the legality of a judgment of an inferior court where there is absent another prescribed method. It is too laborious to repeat the history out of which the question here grew. It is understandable by reference to State ex rel. Attorney General v. Davenport et al., 125 Okla. 1, 256 P. 340, State ex rel. Short v. Martin, 125 Okla. 24, 256 P. 667, and State ex rel. Short v. Owens, 125 Okla. 66, 256 P. 704; and we reaffirm the views expressed in the said opinions and only deem it necessary herein to supplement the same. The judgment of this court, set out as appendix "A" to the said first opinion, is the judgment which the Honorable Criminal Court of Appeals undertook to vacate, set aside, and hold for naught.

¶4 But our authority to act, and our command to act is in the Constitution. We quote sections 1 and 2, article 7, thereof (William's Ann. Const., secs. 186, 187):

Sec. 1. "The judicial power of this state shall be vested in the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment, a Supreme Court, district courts, county courts, courts of justices of the peace, municipal courts, and such other courts, commissions or boards, inferior to the Supreme Court, as may be established by law."

Sec. 2. "The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be coextensive with the state, and shall extend to all civil cases at law and in equity, and to all criminal cases until a criminal court of appeals with exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases shall be established by law. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to a general superintending control over all inferior courts and all commissions and boards created by law. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, and such other remedial writs as may be provided by law, and to hear and determine the same; and the Supreme Court may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by law. Each of the Justices shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus to any part of the state upon petition or by or on behalf of any person held in actual custody, and make such writs returnable before himself, or before the Supreme Court, or before any district court, or judge thereof, in the state."

¶5 The opinion of the Honorable Criminal Court of Appeals proceeds from many fallacies, one among which is that it has coordinate jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of the state. It argues therefrom that it can with impunity, if it sees fit, override the final judgment of this court. It stresses that it has such co-ordinate jurisdiction and such power. If it has power to do what it understood herein to do, the same must be found in the Constitution or statutes of the state, for neither this court nor that court would have any existence, power, or jurisdiction but for the provision of the same.

¶6 Is it not intemperate to call that reason logic or law which is a mere assertion that this court has arrogated power to itself where it only declares the Constitution of the state adopted by the people? For the Constitution was not, and is not of the making of this court or the individual members thereof. We can only declare it as we find it. Its language is plain. The Honorable Criminal Court of Appeals refrained from quoting it. The judicial system it inaugurated is harmonious, and there is not to be found therein, or in the statutes enacted by the Legislature thereunder, a discordant note. Could it be that any court would "sell the truth to serve the hour?" Much easier our task would be if we so yielded.

¶7 The Honorable Criminal Court of Appeals, in asserting it has co-ordinate jurisdiction with this court, refrains from quoting section 1 of article 7, supra:

"The judicial power of this state shall be vested in * * * a Supreme Court, and such other courts inferior to the Supreme Court as may be established by law."

¶8 We pause and call attention to certain language, "a Supreme Court." The article "a," as used here, can have no meaning except one-one Supreme Court.

¶9 Then the language follows:

"And such other courts inferior to the Supreme Court as may be established by law."

¶10 The last clause contemplates that the Legislature may establish other courts by legislative enactment, in which event all such courts shall be inferior to the Supreme Court. This is important, and it is not of our making. It means no less than what it says. It is the base of our judicial system. The succeeding section (sec. 2, art. 7) provides that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall include all causes, civil and criminal, "until a Criminal Court of Appeals with exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases shall be established by law." The last three words are identical with the last three words in the preceding section. Each stamps the courts "established by law" as inferior to the Supreme Court. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court "shall extend to a general superintending control over all inferior courts * * *created by law."

¶11 It must appear clear that there is only one Supreme Court; that all other courts (we do not refer to the state Senate as a court; it is not so referred to in the Constitution except when it sits as a court of impeachment) are inferior to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court is given a general superintending control over all. To this end the said section authorizes the issuance by this court of the remedial writs mentioned therein, which include "Certiorari." This proceeding invokes the said original jurisdiction of the court to review the judgment of the Honorable Criminal Court of Appeals as an inferior court in the...