Moore v. Gibson

• Decision Date: 04 April 2001
• Docket Number: No. O 2001-30.,O 2001-30.
• Citation: 2001 OK CR 8,27 P.3d 483
• Parties: James Alvin MOORE, III, Petitioner, v. Gary E. GIBSON, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

27 P.3d 483

2001 OK CR 8

James Alvin MOORE, III, Petitioner, v. Gary E. GIBSON, Respondent.

No. O 2001-30.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 4, 2001.

OPINION ANSWERING CERTIFIED QUESTION OF LAW

LILE, Judge:

¶ 1 Bobby R. Baldock, Presiding Judge of a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, has certified a question of law pursuant to the Oklahoma Uniform Certification of Question of Law Act, 20 O.S.Supp.1997, §§ 1601-1611, as follows:

Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22 § 1081 authorizes the filing of petitions for post-conviction relief, but does not define what constitutes "filing." Federal procedural law recognizes the "prisoner mailbox rule" whereby prose prisoners' legal pleadings are considered filed when given to prison authorities for mailing to the appropriate court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988)

. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the prisoner mailbox rule enunciated in Houston applies to appeals to that court. See Woody v. State ex rel. Department of Corrections, 833 P.2d 257, 259-60 (Okla.1992). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently rejected Woody and held the prisoner mailbox rule inapplicable to criminal appeals. See Hunnicutt v. State, 952 P.2d 988, 989 (Okla.Crim.App.1997). However, Hunnicutt and its progeny have not addressed the constitutional concerns underlying the holding in Woody. Moreover, neither Woody nor Hunnicutt addressed the applicability of the prisoner mailbox rule to initial filings in Oklahoma district courts. Given these ambiguities in Oklahoma law, does the prisoner mailbox rule apply to filings in Oklahoma district courts for post conviction relief made pursuant to Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1081?

¶ 2 The specific question before us, whether the "prisoner mailbox rule" applies to filing in Oklahoma district courts pursuant to the Post Conviction Procedure Act (hereinafter the Act), 22 O.S.1991, § 1080, can be answered by stating that the "prisoner mailbox rule" does not apply to these filings, because: (1) the clear and unambiguous language of the statute does not provide for any other means of filing; (2) the definition of "filing" means when a document is delivered to the proper court for the purpose thereof; and (3) there is no statutory time limitation for the filing of an application for post-conviction relief in a district court in Oklahoma in a non-capital case; therefore, policy considerations do not require the adoption of a "prisoner mail box rule."¹

FACTS

¶ 3 These relevant facts are taken from the order of the federal court certifying this question of law.

¶ 4 Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court system concerning a non-capital case. Because his state conviction became final before the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), he had until April 23, 1997, to file a federal habeas petition. However, this deadline could be tolled if a state post-conviction proceeding were pending.

¶ 5 Petitioner filed, in a District Court of Oklahoma, an application for post-conviction relief which was received and file stamped on April 24, 1997, after the April 23 deadline. However, Petitioner claims that he tendered the application to prison officials on April 17, 1997, and urges this date as the effective date of filing, thereby, tolling the limitations period of the AEDPA.

THE REVISED UNIFORM CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION OF LAW ACT

¶ 6 The Uniform Certification of Question of Law Act became effective in Oklahoma on July 1, 1973. 20 O.S.Supp. 1997, § 1601. Pursuant to the Act, this Court,

may answer a question of law certified to it by a court of the United States, or by an appellate court of another state, or of a federally recognized Indian tribal government, or of Canada, a Canadian province or territory, Mexico, or a Mexican state, if the answer may be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court and there is no controlling decision of the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals, constitutional provision, or statute of this state.

2O O.S.Supp.1997, § 1602; see Canady v. Reynolds, 1994 OK CR 54, 880 P.2d 391, 393-94

. This Court has the power to give the present state of the law as well as use the opportunity to create new precedents in answering a certified question of law. Canady, 880 P.2d at 395. In doing so we may reformulate or re-interpret a question of law certified to this Court. See Id., 20 O.S.Supp.1997, § 1602.1.

DISCUSSION

¶ 7 The question posed requires us to interpret a statute which deals exclusively with criminal procedure. The power to do so has been granted to this Court by the Oklahoma Constitution. This Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases in Oklahoma. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4; see Banks v. State, 1998 OK CR 5, 953 P.2d 344, 346

; see also State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 1990 OK 3, 786 P.2d 82, 85. Actions brought pursuant to the Oklahoma Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act are criminal actions. State ex rel. Coats v. Hunter, 1978 OK CR 57, 580 P.2d 158, 159.

¶ 8 We answer the question posed by first defining the meaning of the term "filing" found in § 1081. Section 1081 of the Act provides that "[a] proceeding is commenced by filing a verified application... with the clerk of the court imposing judgment... [or] the clerk of the district court in the county in which. . . parole or conditional release was revoked." 22 O.S.1991, § 1081.

¶ 9 The courts of this State have been consistent in their interpretation and definition of the word "filed" since statehood. In Covington v. Fisher, 22 Okla. 207, 97 P. 615, 615 & 617 (1908), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a mortgage is filed, within the meaning of the statute, when it is delivered to the proper officer, and by him received for the purpose of being recorded.

¶ 10 In Norris v. Cross, 25 Okla. 287, 105 P. 1000, 1003 (1909), the Court stated,

A paper is filed when it is delivered into the actual custody of the officer designated by the statute, to be kept by him as a permanent record of his office, and the placing by the officer of his mark or indorsement upon such instrument is only a memorandum or evidence that the filing has been made. Covington v. Fisher (Okl.) 97 Pac. [P.] 615; State v. Heth, 60 Kan. 560, 57 Pac. [P.] 108; Rathburn v. Hamilton, 53 Kan. 470, 37 Pac. [P.] 20; Wilkinson v. Elliott, 43 Kan. 590, 23 Pac. [P.] 614, 19 Am.St. Rep. 158; Jacksonville St. Ry. Co. v. Walton et al., 42 Fla. 54, 28 South. [So.] 59; Oats v. State, 153 Ind. 436, 55 N.E. 226; Bettison v. Budd, 21 Ark. 578.

¶ 11 In State Nat. Bank v. Lowenstein, 52 Okla. 259, 155 P. 1127, 1129 (1915), a garnishment proceeding, the Court held that answer by the garnishee was "filed" on the day it was delivered to the proper officer, and by him received for the purpose of being recorded. In Reeder v. Mitchell, 117 Okla. 21, 244 P. 773, 774 (1926) the Court stated, "a pleading is filed within the meaning of the statute when it is delivered to the proper officer for that purpose, and the neglect or mistake of such officer in indorsing the proper date thereon does not affect the rights of the parties."

¶ 12 In Dryden v. Burkhart, 198 Okla. 239, 177 P.2d 121, 125-26 (1946), a probate proceeding, the Court stated,

The filing contemplated by the statute, so far as the proponent is concerned, is the delivery of the record into the actual custody of the court. This accords with the generally accepted construction of the word `filed'. Norris v. Cross, 25 Okl. 287, 105 P. 1000. To same effect is City St. Imp. Co. v. Babcock, 6 Cal.Unrep. 910, 68 P. 584, 585, wherein it is said: `In modern days it is usually held that a paper is filed on the part of the party who is required to file it when he has presented it at the proper office and left it with the person in charge thereof.'

¶ 13 In Razorsoft, Inc. v. Maktal, Inc., 1995 OK CIV APP 115, 907 P.2d 1102, 1103, (Div. 1 1995), the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals stated that,

The file-stamp date does not always reflect the date of filing because filing means `delivery of the instrument to the proper custodian...' Bruce v. Employers Casualty Company, 897 P.2d 313, 314 (Okl.App.1995), citing State National Bank v. Lowenstein, 52 Okl. 259, 155 P. 1127, 1129 (1915).

¶ 14 This Court has followed this definition of the word "filed" when construing Section 1087 of the Act by holding that an appeal to this Court of the denial of post-conviction relief is commenced by filing, with the clerk of this Court, the pleadings required to commence such an appeal. Hunnicutt v. State, 1997 OK CR 77, 952 P.2d 988, 989. "The delivery of such pleadings to prison officials does not substitute for such filing." Id.² ¶ 15 Next, we must look to the language of Section 1081 to determine whether the legislature intended a different meaning for the term "filing" used in that section. The intent of the legislature is clear from the unambiguous language of the statute.

¶ 16 A proceeding is commenced by filing an application with the clerk of the court. This language was written at a time when the term "filing" had been defined by judicial opinion. Therefore, we find that the term "filing" found in Section 1081 is intended to mean when a proper petition is delivered to the proper court.

¶ 17 Lastly, it is important for this Court to determine whether the failure to follow a "prisoner mailbox rule" deprives a petitioner of equal access to the courts, despite the clear language of the statute. We find that the policy justifications of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), are absent in Oklahoma.³ The policy reasons which support the adoption of a "prisoner mailbox rule" are only relevant when time limitations exist and when other means of redress are unavailable. There are no such time limitations for the filing of an application for post-conviction...