JDP v. State, No. J 98-1149.
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Citation | 989 P.2d 948,1999 OK CR 5 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1999 |
| Parties | J.D.P., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. J 98-1149. |
989 P.2d 948
1999 OK CR 5
v.
STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
No. J 98-1149.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
February 2, 1999.
ACCELERATED DOCKET ORDER
¶ 1 J.D.P. was charged as a youthful offender in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF 98-2555, with two counts of Lewd Molestation. J.D.P. filed a Motion for Certification as Juvenile. The Motion was denied by the Honorable Todd Singer, Special Judge, and Appellant appealed. Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(4), Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (1998), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. The propositions or issues were presented to this Court in oral argument on January 7, 1999, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, Appellant was advised of the decision of this Court.
¶ 2 Appellant raised the following propositions of error:
1. It was fundamental error and an abuse of discretion to bind the Appellant over for trial in the District Court as an adult based exclusively on inadmissible hearsay testimony;
2. Assuming arguendo that the hearsay testimony of the complaining witness' father was admissible, that hearsay testimony described only an act of indecent exposure, not lewd molestation, and juveniles charged with indecent exposure must be charged initially in the juvenile division of the District Court where the burden of proof for certification as an adult is on the State; and,
3. Assuming arguendo that sufficient admissible evidence was submitted to establish probable cause for the reverse certification offense of lewd molestation, it was fundamental error and an abuse of discretion to bind the Appellant over for trial in the District Court as an adult, when all available expert testimony established that the Appellant should be certified as a juvenile.
¶ 3 After thorough consideration of the propositions raised and the argument presented to this Court, we find, by a vote of 5 to 0, that the Order denying the Motion for Certification as Juvenile should be AFFIRMED.
¶ 4 Appellant's propositions one and two involve evidentiary matters and are not properly before the Court in this juvenile appeal. See W.D.C. v. State, 1990 OK CR 71, ¶ 5, 799 P.2d 142, 144.
¶ 5 In proposition three, Appellant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his Motion for Certification as
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re M.B., No. 102,908.
...26, 17 P.3d 1041; V.J.A v. State, 1999 OK CR 40, 993 P.2d 773; C.L.F v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, 989 P.2d 945; J.D.P. v. State, 1999 OK CR 5, 989 P.2d 948; C.R.B. v. State, 1999 OK CR 1, 973 P.2d 339; 2) orders certifying or denying an adult sentence: A.J.B v. State, 1999 OK CR 50, 992 P.2d 91......
-
State v. J.B., JS-2022-127
...absent an abuse of discretion." T.G.L. v. State, 2015 OK CR 4, ¶ 10, 344 P.3d 1098, 1100 (quoting J.D.P. v. State, 1999 OK CR 5, ¶ 6, 989 P.2d 948, 949). An "abuse of discretion" has been defined by Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic ......
-
State v. J.B., Case No. JS-2022-127
...absent an abuse of discretion." T.G.L. v. State , 2015 OK CR 4, ¶ 10, 344 P.3d 1098, 1100 (quoting J.D.P. v. State , 1999 OK CR 5, ¶ 6, 989 P.2d 948, 949 ).An "abuse of discretion" has been defined by this Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the......
-
CLF v. State, No. J-98-1356.
...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......
-
In re M.B., No. 102,908.
...26, 17 P.3d 1041; V.J.A v. State, 1999 OK CR 40, 993 P.2d 773; C.L.F v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, 989 P.2d 945; J.D.P. v. State, 1999 OK CR 5, 989 P.2d 948; C.R.B. v. State, 1999 OK CR 1, 973 P.2d 339; 2) orders certifying or denying an adult sentence: A.J.B v. State, 1999 OK CR 50, 992 P.2d 91......
-
State v. J.B., JS-2022-127
...absent an abuse of discretion." T.G.L. v. State, 2015 OK CR 4, ¶ 10, 344 P.3d 1098, 1100 (quoting J.D.P. v. State, 1999 OK CR 5, ¶ 6, 989 P.2d 948, 949). An "abuse of discretion" has been defined by Court as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic ......
-
CLF v. State, No. J-98-1356.
...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......
-
Los v. State, J-2014-0891
...and on appeal, the magistrate's ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion." J.D.P. v. State, 1999 OK CR 5, ¶ 6, 989 P.2d 948, 949. Judge Gore considered the criteria dictated by Section 2-5-206 of Title 10A, denied Appellant's motion, and the record supports her decision. ¶......