JRL v. State, J-2000-1066.

• Decision Date: 19 December 2000
• Docket Number: No. J-2000-1066.,J-2000-1066.
• Citation: 2000 OK CR 26,17 P.3d 1041
• Parties: J.R.L., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

17 P.3d 1041

2000 OK CR 26

J.R.L., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. J-2000-1066.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

December 19, 2000.

ACCELERATED DOCKET ORDER

¶ 1 Appellant, born March 27, 1985, was charged as an adult with Murder in the First Degree in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-00-145. Appellant's adopted father was fatally stabbed May 2, 2000, in the neck and chest with a knife. On May 9, 2000, Appellant, by and through counsel, filed a motion to be certified as a juvenile or as a youthful offender. In this motion Appellant's counsel requested that a certification study be prepared.¹

¶ 2 On May 11, 2000, the Honorable William B. Buxton, Special Judge, scheduled the preliminary hearing for June 7, 2000. Judge Buxton ordered a certification study be prepared on May 12, 2000, as requested by Appellant's May 9, 2000, motion.² On June 7, 2000, the preliminary hearing was continued to July 14, 2000. On June 22, 2000, Appellant's counsel requested a continuance from July 14, 2000, stating that in order to properly prepare, Appellant "must retain and present expert testimony." Appellant stated that he had retained an expert but that this expert would not be prepared to testify by July 14, 2000. Judge Buxton continued the preliminary hearing to July 31, 2000.

¶ 3 On July 24, 2000, Appellant's counsel again requested a continuance of "at least thirty days" stating:

The defendant has retained an expert and has submitted records and files to said expert for his review but said expert has informed the undersigned that he will not be in a position to offer evidence by the July 31st date. The testimony of said expert is critical to defendant's defense and the undersigned cannot be prepared without such testimony.

Judge Buxton denied Appellant's motion for a continuance finding:

The Court finds that the Preliminary Hearing in this matter must be completed within ninety (90) days of the charging of the accused person to determine whether the crime of Murder First Degree has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe the accused person committed the crime.

¶ 4 Following the preliminary hearing July 31, 2000, Judge Buxton denied Appellant's motion for certification as a youthful offender. Appellant appeals from the denial of his motion.

¶ 5 On appeal Appellant raised three propositions of error:

1. The trial court abused its discretion in not certifying Appellant as a youthful offender.

2. The trial court abused its discretion in not continuing the case at the request of Appellant, which was made without objection by the State. Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel by counsel's failure to obtain a psychological evaluation of Appellant by the time of the hearing.

3. Appellant's alleged confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and was coerced.

¶ 6 Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(4), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2000), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. The propositions were presented to this Court in oral argument November 30, 2000, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court.

¶ 7 Because we find merit in part to Appellant's second proposition of error, we will not review the remaining propositions of error. We agree with Appellant that the trial court erred in not continuing this case, at the request of Appellant and without objection by the State, in order that a psychological evaluation could be completed and the expert could testify.

¶ 8 When ruling on a motion for certification as a youthful offender or juvenile, the trial court is required to give consideration to seven guidelines. See 10 O.S.Supp.2000, § 7306-2.5(D). The fourth criteria is:

The sophistication and maturity of the accused person and his capability of distinguishing right from wrong as determined by consideration of his psychological evaluation, home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living.

(Emphasis added.) The fourth criteria requires consideration of a "psychological evaluation." To evaluate the fourth criteria, it is evident from the language of the statute, that the trial court must have a psychological evaluation. The psychological evaluation is also useful for the trial court's consideration of the fifth and sixth guidelines. The fifth criteria requires consideration of the "prospects for adequate protection of the public if the accused person is processed through the youthful offender system or the juvenile system." And, the sixth criteria requires consideration of the "likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the accused person . . . by the use of procedures and facilities currently available to the juvenile court."

¶ 9 In C.R.B. v. State, 1999 OK CR 1, ¶ 19, 973 P.2d 339, we found that to fully implement the purpose of the Youthful Offender Act, the District Court must have sufficient information which should include a certification study.³ Therefore, we find that when the certification study...