R.M.J. v. State
| Citation | 2006 OK CR 18,135 P.3d 1286 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. J-2005-216.,J-2005-216. |
| Parties | R.M.J., Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
¶ 1 On January 28, 2004, Appellant was charged as a Youthful Offender in Case No. CF-2004-14 in the District Court of Seminole County. On February 4, 2004, Appellant entered a guilty plea to all charges and was remanded to the custody of the Office of Juvenile Affairs (O.J.A.) for rehabilitation. All sentences were to be served concurrently. The sentencing order issued in Appellant's case noted that he was to be remanded to O.J.A. custody for a total of seven years. Appellant was 17 years old at the time of sentencing.
¶ 2 August 2, 2004 was Appellant's 18th birthday. On August 24, 2004, after being advised by O.J.A. that it intended to recommend he be released from its custody, Appellant filed a "Motion for Release from Office of Juvenile Affairs Custody." The motion alleged the State failed to timely conduct a review hearing pursuant to 10 O.S. § 7306-2.10 to extend O.J.A.'s ability to keep Appellant in custody beyond his 18th birthday. Appellant alleged that the State was barred from conducting the hearing after Appellant reached the age of 18 and requested the District Court release him from O.J.A.'s custody.
¶ 3 The District Court directed a response from O.J.A. and the State. O.J.A.'s response indicated that it had no authority to retain custody of Appellant since no hearing had been conducted prior to his 18th birthday allowing for the extension of custody until Appellant's 19th birthday. Citing 10 O.S. 2001, § 7306-2.10(G), O.J.A. opined that Appellant must be released from its custody because the District Court did not authorize extension of custody or supervision of Appellant prior to his 18th birthday.
¶ 4 The State argued that it was not procedurally barred from seeking to extend custody in Appellant's case simply because he had celebrated his 18th birthday. It requested the court to reconcile the conflicting provisions of the Youthful Offender Act, and preserve the legislative intent of the Youthful Offender Act by giving the conflicting provisions of the act a "saving construction" rendering the Act consistent, non-conflicting and Constitutionally sound. The State also cited O.J.A.'s refusal to treat and keep youthful offenders in custody past the age of 18 as an ongoing impediment to implementation of the Youthful Offender Act.
¶ 5 In an order entered September 29, 2004, the District Court of Seminole County, the Honorable George Butner, District Judge, denied Appellant's request for release from O.J.A. custody, authorized O.J.A. to retain custody of Appellant until his 19th birthday and set a "pre-19th birthday review" hearing for June 22, 2005.1 Appellant failed to timely seek an appeal of the denial of his motion for release from custody.
¶ 6 On December 2, 2004, Appellant filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, seeking the same relief that he had sought in his August 24, 2004 Motion for Release from Custody. That request was denied by the District Court in an order entered that same day. Appellant then initiated his appeal from that order with this Court filed December 13, 2004. On December 23, 2004, this Court entered an order directing Appellant to clarify the posture of his appeal and show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to timely appeal the District Court's original denial of his request for release from custody.
¶ 7 On January 6, 2005, Appellant filed his response with this Court. Attached to the response was an affidavit from trial counsel, M. Bradley Carter, indicating that there was confusion over whether or not the order entered September 29, 2004, denying Appellant's request for release from custody, was a final, appealable order. To expedite this matter, Mr. Carter stated that the parties agreed to incorporate the arguments and transcripts of proceedings from the hearing on the Motion to Release from Custody into an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was subsequently filed on December 2, 2004. Judge Butner was made aware of the situation, and again denied the request for release.
¶ 8 In an order entered February 24, 2005 this Court noted that Appellant could not extend his appeal time by simply re-filing his motion in a different format. We declined jurisdiction of the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus because it was nothing more than an attempt to extend Appellant's appeal time. However, this Court recognized that the Youthful Offender Act did not specify whether Appellant could appeal the district court's ruling denying his request for release from custody. We granted Appellant an appeal out of time from the order denying his request for release from O.J.A. custody noting the statute's ambiguity.
¶ 9 On May 19, 2005, this Court entered an order striking the previously scheduled oral argument, and invited the parties to file supplemental argument and authority. O.J.A. was also invited to file a response. The parties were to address the following questions posed by the court:
1. Whose responsibility is it to schedule the pre-18th/19th birthday hearing set forth in 10 O.S. § 7306-2.10(D)?
2. If no hearing is held prior to a defendant's 18th/19th birthday, as required by § 7306-2.10(D), does the trial court lose jurisdiction over the defendant?
3. If no pre-18th/19th birthday hearing is held, what are the consequences of the failure to timely conduct the hearing?
4. What is the relationship between the provisions of 10 O.S. §§ 7306-2.10(D) and (G), and how should the two provisions be reconciled?
¶ 10 Timely responses were filed by Appellant and the State. On July 20, 2005, O.J.A. filed a request for leave to file its brief out of time stating it was unaware of this Court's invitation to file an amicus curiae brief in the matter. On August 18, 2005, O.J.A. was granted permission to file its brief out of time. This matter was then re-scheduled for oral argument on March 2, 2006.
¶ 11 On appeal, Appellant raised one proposition of error:
1. The State failed to file a Motion to Extend Jurisdiction or to Bridge in order to retain custody of Appellant past his eighteenth birthday. Therefore, the trial court's jurisdiction over Appellant lapsed on his eighteenth birthday. Thus, the trial court did not have authority to order the Office of Juvenile Affairs (O.J.A.) to continue its jurisdiction over Appellant.
¶ 12 Pursuant to this Court's February 24, 2005 order, this appeal was assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. The propositions or issues were presented to this Court in oral argument March 2, 2006, pursuant to Rule 11.2(F). At the conclusion of oral argument, the matter was taken under advisement.
¶ 13 We make the following findings with regard to Appellant's case.
1. There is no appeal allowed from an order of the District Court extending or terminating O.J.A.'s custody of a Youthful Offender entered as a result of a pre-18th or pre-19th birthday hearing.
2. The pre-18th and pre-19th birthday review hearings, required by 10 O.S. § 7306-2.10(D) shall be docketed and scheduled for at least thirty (30) days prior to the defendant's 18th and 19th birthdays at the time the youthful offender is sentenced and remanded to the custody of the Office of Juvenile Affairs for rehabilitation.
3. The District Court does not lose jurisdiction over a defendant for failure to timely conduct the offender's 18th or 19th birthday review hearing.
4. This matter is REMANDED to the District Court of Seminole County with instructions to conduct Appellant's 19th birthday review hearing as specified in 10 O.S. § 7306-2.10.
Title 10 O.S. § 7306-2.10(D) reads as follows:
D. If the youthful offender has not been previously discharged, the court shall hold a review hearing within the thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date the youthful offender becomes eighteen (18) years of age or nineteen (19) years of age, if extended by law.
As noted in our February 24, 2005 order, there is no provision in the Youthful Offender statute for appealing from an order of the District Court extending or terminating O.J.A.'s custody of a Youthful Offender, as a result of the pre-18th or pre-19th birthday review hearing. Nor is there a provision in this Court's Rules granting appellate review of this type of ruling. Appellant's request for relief presented an issue of first impression regarding this matter. After reviewing Appellant's claim for relief, and deciding the limited issue presented in this case, we find that there is no right to appeal from a District Court's order extending or terminating O.J.A.'s custody of a Youthful Offender pursuant to 10 O.S. § 7306-2.10(D).
¶ 14 All parties agree the statute, while directing the District Court to conduct the pre-18th and pre-19th birthday hearings, does not specify who has the responsibility for scheduling the hearing. The Office of Juvenile Affairs is required, by statute, to prepare a written report concerning the conduct, progress and condition of the youthful offender, which shall be submitted to the court prior to scheduled reviews. See 10 O.S. § 7306-2.10(B). This includes the pre-18th and pre-19th birthday review hearings. The statute further directs the court to consider the report, and any timely written response to these reports before conducting its review. Id. We can only conclude that since the statute requires pre-18th and pre-19th birthday reviews, and requires the district court to consider the report before conducting its reviews, the reports should be provided to the court in advance of these statutorily required hearings. In Appellant's case, no pre-18th birthday review report was prepared or delivered to the District Court either in advance of Appellant's birthday, or at the review hearing that was ultimately held on September 29, 2004.
¶ 15 It is the finding of this Court that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re M.B.
...without explanation. 8. Apparently, a similar issue has been considered and answered by the Court of Criminal Appeals in R.M.J. v. State, 2006 OK CR 18, 135 P.3d 1286, in which the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that when a District Court does not timely conduct a pre-birthday hearing......