Fields v. Driesel

• Decision Date: 03 June 1997
• Docket Number: No. P,P
• Citation: 1997 OK CR 33,941 P.2d 1000
• Parties: 1997 OK CR 33 Larry A. FIELDS, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Willard L. DRIESEL, Jr., District Judge of the District Court within and for McCurtain County, State of Oklahoma, Respondent. 96-817.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 1000

941 P.2d 1000

1997 OK CR 33

Larry A. FIELDS, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Willard L. DRIESEL, Jr., District Judge of the District Court within and for McCurtain County State of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. P 96-817.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 3, 1997.

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND GRANTING WRIT OF PROHIBITION

This proceeding arises from the criminal conviction of Wilford Lawrence "Pete" Cherry in McCurtain County District Court, Case Number CRF-96-5. Cherry pled guilty on February 5, 1996 to Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine), in violation of 63 O.S.1991, § 2-401(B)(2), and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary for twelve (12) years with the last five (5) years suspended. Cherry was transported to the Lexington Assessment and Reception Center (LARC) and received by the Department of Corrections. Thirty-two (32) days later, Cherry was assigned to the Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP), released from LARC, and placed under the supervision of a Department of Corrections' probation and parole officer.

On March 19, 1996, the Honorable Willard L. Driesel, District Judge, issued an Order to Comply in Cherry's criminal case, ordering Petitioner Fields to either furnish the District Court with proof that Cherry was not assigned to EMP, to take Cherry into immediate custody and imprison him, or to personally appear on April 8, 1996 and show cause why Petitioner should not be held in contempt of court for failing or refusing to comply with the Judgment and Sentence imposed by the District Court on February 5, 1996.

Petitioner Fields, through counsels Vincent L. Knight and Ronald Anderson, General Counsel and Assistant General Counsel for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction on Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Stay of District Court Order to Comply or Conduct Show Cause Hearing in the Supreme Court of this State on April 4, 1996. Therein, Petitioner sought to prohibit Respondent from enforcing the March 19, 1996, Order to Comply. Petitioner asserts (1) the District Court has no personal jurisdiction over him because he was not a party to the criminal proceeding in Case Number CRF-96-5; (2) the District Court's Order to Comply directing Petitioner to remove a prisoner from a program which is authorized by law is an unconstitutional infringement by the judicial branch into the executive branch; and (3) the District Court's Order to Comply to remove a prisoner from a program authorized by law will result in chaos to the orderly management of an already overburdened prison system.

On April 4, 1996, the Supreme Court granted an immediate stay of the April 8, 1996, show cause hearing and directed the stay to remain in effect until determination of this original action or until further order of the Court. The request for stay was denied as to the hearing set on the Petitioner's Objection to Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss filed in the District Court. Respondent was directed to file a response. See Fields v. Driesel, No. 87,234 (Okl. April 4, 1996) (not for publication).

At the hearing on April 8, 1996, Respondent Judge denied Petitioner's Motion for Dismissal in the District Court, finding that venue was proper and declining to address the issues of whether the District Court had personal jurisdiction over Petitioner and whether public officials were parties to a criminal prosecution.

On July 5, 1996, the Supreme Court declined to assume jurisdiction and transferred the case to this Court. See Fields v. Driesel, No. 87,234 (Okl. July 5, 1996) (not for publication). ¹ Petitioner argues that a writ of prohibition should be granted for the following reasons:

1. The Order of the District Court is void as the court order to remove a prisoner from the Program violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine;

2. Corrections officials are not parties to criminal prosecutions; thus, the District Court lacks any personal jurisdiction over Director Larry Fields;

3. A contempt action cannot be used to challenge the acts of public officials for acts carried out in their official capacity;

4. Venue is proper only in Oklahoma County to contest any acts of public officials in the management and operation of prisons including the assignment of inmates to the Electronic Monitoring Program; and

5. A Writ of Prohibition is the only adequate remedy for Petitioner Fields.

For a writ of prohibition, Petitioner has the burden of establishing that "(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), 22 O.S.Supp.1996, Ch. 18, App., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We are satisfied that Petitioner is entitled to an extraordinary writ prohibiting Respondent from doing an act which is unauthorized by law. Respondent cannot assert jurisdiction over the Director of the Department of Corrections in a criminal proceeding to which the Director was not a named party and Respondent's effort to hold Petitioner in "indirect contempt" to challenge his official discretionary acts performed as Director of the Department of Corrections violates the Oklahoma constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

In this case, Respondent has attempted to hold Petitioner in indirect contempt of court if Petitioner "fails" to perform certain acts. Indirect contempt of court is defined as "wilful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued or made by court; resistance wilfully offered by any person to the execution of a lawful order or process of a court." 21 O.S.1991, § 565. The lawful order involved in this matter is the Judgment and Sentence entered in the criminal case of Mr. Cherry.

Respondent asserts there is no necessity that a person be a named party to an action to be in indirect contempt of a court order and asserts that the "normal rules associated with parties would not be applicable." Therefore, Respondent claims the District Court had the authority to issue its Order to Comply directing Petitioner Fields to perform certain acts or to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

We agree with Petitioner that the District Court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over him simply by virtue of its rendering of a Judgment and Sentence against a criminal defendant. The language in the Judgment and Sentence imposed in McCurtain County District Court, Case Number CRF-96-5, does not direct the Department of Corrections to perform any act to carry out the Judgment and Sentence. The Judgment and Sentence places the defendant in the "custody and control" of the Department of Corrections in compliance with the provisions of 57 O.S.Supp.1996, § 521. Because the sentence imposed was for incarceration in the Department of Corrections, the Sheriff of the county was directed to deliver the defendant to the LARC and to leave a copy of the Judgment and Sentence "to serve as warrant and authority" for imprisonment of the defendant.

Every exercise of the power to punish a violation of a judicial order is, however, subject to one important qualification, namely, it is absolutely essential that the court making the order should have acted directly within jurisdictional limits, otherwise the disobedience of such an order will be no contempt. In the absence of jurisdiction the judgment is a nullity Ex parte Driggs, 325 P.2d 72, 75-76 (Okl.1958). Generally, a trial court's jurisdiction is based upon jurisdiction over the parties and jurisdiction of the general subject matter. See e.g., In re Anderson, 803 P.2d 1160, 1163 (Okl.Cr.1990); Scobie v. Page, 397 P.2d 520, 521 (Okl.Cr.1964).

Section 565 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which defines contempt of court, requires "the order or process disobeyed to be lawful. The lawfulness of the order is determined by whether the court had jurisdiction to so act." Whillock v. Whillock, 550 P.2d 558, 559 (Okl.1976). Here, the District Court's Order to Comply directing Petitioner to perform certain acts or to show cause why he should not be held in indirect contempt of court is not a valid order, because the District Court did not have jurisdiction over Petitioner simply by virtue of its issuance of a Judgment and Sentence in a criminal matter. As Petitioner argues, the language of a Judgment and Sentence does not make the Department of Corrections a party to the criminal proceeding. The Judgment and Sentence only requires the sheriff to deliver the defendant to LARC and leave him there for imprisonment as set out in 57 O.S.Supp.1996, § 530. Petitioner compares his case to People v. Lockhart, 699 P.2d 1332 (Colo.1985), where Department of Corrections officials refused to accept prisoners in accordance with mittimus orders which contained the following language:

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Sheriff of Jefferson County shall safely convey the Defendant to the Colorado State Department of Corrections Diagnostic Unit at Canon City, Colorado, to be received and kept as provided by law.

When the Jefferson County sheriff petitioned the District Court for twenty-three orders to show cause why the Department of Corrections should not be held in contempt, the Department of Corrections claimed the District Court had no jurisdiction to hold them in contempt because they were not officers of the court identified by state statute whose compliance could be enforced through a contempt proceeding. Id. at 1335.

The Colorado Supreme Court noted that "[g]enerally, state officials who are not parties to a proceeding may not be held in contempt," but determined that "corrections officials are officers of the court for the limited purpose of taking custody of prisoners as directed by the mittimus." Id....