M.C.T. v. State, 020620 OKCRI, J-2019-618
|Opinion Judge:||KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE|
|Party Name:||M.C.T., Appellant v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.|
|Attorney:||APPEARANCES AT TRIAL M.KARLA TANKUT JASMINE JOHNSON INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT KRISTI JOHNSON ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNSEL FOR STATE APPEARANCES ON APPEAL DANNY JOSEPH INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT SUANNE CARLSON ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE|
|Judge Panel:||LEWIS, P.J.: SPECIALLY CONCUR LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR HUDSON, J.: CONCUR ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE, SPECIALLY CONCUR|
|Case Date:||February 06, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma|
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY THE HONORABLE SCOTT BROCKMAN, SPECIAL JUDGE.
APPEARANCES AT TRIAL M.KARLA TANKUT JASMINE JOHNSON INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
KRISTI JOHNSON ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNSEL FOR STATE
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL DANNY JOSEPH INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
SUANNE CARLSON ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 M.C.T. appeals the decision of the Honorable Scott Brockman, Special Judge, in Cleveland County District Court Case No. CF-2019-470 certifying him for trial as an adult for the crimes of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and Unlawful Use of a Computer. Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(1), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. The propositions or issues were presented to this Court in oral argument December 5, 2019, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court.
¶2 The appeal turns on statutory interpretation and therefore the district court's decision is reviewed de novo. Smith v. State, 2007 OK CR 16, ¶ 40. 157 P.3d 1155, 1169.
¶3 Appellant committed crimes in Oklahoma County before he committed the crimes in the instant case. The Oklahoma County prosecution concluded while the prosecution in this case remained ongoing. The district court, noting that Appellant had previously stipulated to adult status and pled guilty as an adult in Oklahoma County, found Appellant to be an adult by operation of law.
¶4 In his sole proposition of error, Appellant contends that because he committed the crimes in the instant case prior to his adjudication as an adult in Oklahoma County, it was error to find him an adult in the instant case without first holding a certification hearing. We disagree and affirm the decision of the district...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP