A.R.M. v. State, No. J–2011–83.

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtA. JOHNSON
Citation2011 OK CR 25,279 P.3d 797
PartiesA.R.M., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. J–2011–83.
Decision Date08 September 2011

279 P.3d 797
2011 OK CR 25

A.R.M., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. J–2011–83.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 8, 2011.


[279 P.3d 798]


¶ 0 An Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; The Honorable Larry Jones, Special Judge.

Melissa French, Erin Maxwell, Assistant Public Defenders, Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for defendant at trial.

Scott Rowland, Jennifer E. Chance, Assistant District Attorneys, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for the State at trial.


Melissa French Erin, Maxwell Benjamin C. Brown, Assistant Public Defenders, Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for appellant on appeal.

Jennifer E. Chance, Julia E. Hartnell, Assistant District Attorneys, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for appellee on appeal.

SUMMARY OPINION

A. JOHNSON, Presiding Judge.

¶ 1 On September 2, 2010, Appellant, A.R.M., was charged as a Youthful Offender with Count 1, Shooting With Intent to Kill and Count 2, Possession of a Firearm in Oklahoma County Case No. CF–2010–5909. Appellant was 16 years, 11 months and 29 days old at the time the offense was committed. On September 9, 2010, the State filed a Motion to Sentence Appellant as an Adult. On November 18, 2010, the State filed an Amended Information, adding Count 3, Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, to the original charges. In an order entered January 28, 2011, the District Court of Oklahoma County, the Honorable Larry Jones, Special Judge, granted the State's motion to sentence Appellant as an adult. From this ruling, A.R.M. appeals.

¶ 2 A.R.M. raised four propositions of error on appeal:

1. The imposition of the requirement that the rehabilitation program be completed by 18 years and 5 months is contrary to the intent and purpose of the Youthful Offender Act;

2. The delays, caused by the Appellee in completing the preliminary hearing and the hearing on the Motion to Impose an Adult Sentence, violated the Appellant's due process and equal protection rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions;

3. The State failed to present clear and convincing evidence that A.R.M. would not reasonably complete a plan of rehabilitation or that the public would not be adequately protected if he was sentenced as a Youthful Offender; and

4. The court's substitution of its own opinion for the evidence presented at the hearing constituted an abuse of discretion.

Pursuant to Rule 11.2(A)(2), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2011), this appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket of this Court. The propositions and issues were presented to this Court in oral argument on May 12, 2011, pursuant to Rule 11.2(E). At the conclusion of oral argument, the parties were advised of the decision of this Court.


¶ 3 The District Court's order granting the State's motion to sentence Appellant as an adult is AFFIRMED.

[279 P.3d 799]

¶ 4 In Proposition I, A.R.M. argues that the age limitation requiring the Office of Juvenile Affairs to relinquish custody of youthful offenders once they reach 18 years and 5 months is contrary to the intent and purpose of the Youthful Offender Act. We disagree. The Legislature has clearly expressed its intent as set forth at 10A O.S.Supp.2010, § 2–5–207. While 17 year old offenders are eligible for treatment as youthful offenders, the time span for which treatment is available ends at age 18 years and 5 months. The characterization of that limitation as “arbitrary and ridiculous” notwithstanding, the Legislature's intent could not have been more clear. However distasteful the age limitation might be, we find that the intent of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Residential Funding Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. Adams, No. 108,864.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 29, 2012
    ...including any concerning whether or not Option One Mortgage and Option One Mortgage Corporation are the same entity. It does, however, [279 P.3d 797]appear from the filed record that there is at least one issue of material fact and summary judgment was inappropriate. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY G......
  • State v. J.B., JS-2022-127
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 25, 2022
    ...by the evidence presented on the record, just as our review is limited to the record presented. A.R.M. v. State, 2011 OK CR 25, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799 (quoting W.C.P. v. State, 1990 OK CR 24, ¶ 9, 791 P.2d 97, 100); accord C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. ¶8 In making......
  • J.T.A. v. State, Case Number: J-2018-13
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 24, 2018
    ...trial court abused its discretion in granting the State's motion to sentence Appellant as an adult. A.R.M. v. State , 2011 OK CR 25, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799 ; W.C.P. v. State , 1990 OK CR 24, ¶ 9, 791 P.2d 97, 100 ; C.L.F. v. State , 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. To wit:An "abuse of......
  • State v. K.B., JS-2022-348
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 22, 2022
    ...denying the State's motion to certify Appellee as eligible for imposition of an adult sentence. See A.R.M. v. State, 2011 OK CR 25, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799; C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. An "abuse of discretion" has been defined by Court as a clearly erroneous concl......
4 cases
  • Residential Funding Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. Adams, No. 108,864.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 29, 2012
    ...including any concerning whether or not Option One Mortgage and Option One Mortgage Corporation are the same entity. It does, however, [279 P.3d 797]appear from the filed record that there is at least one issue of material fact and summary judgment was inappropriate. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY G......
  • State v. J.B., JS-2022-127
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 25, 2022
    ...by the evidence presented on the record, just as our review is limited to the record presented. A.R.M. v. State, 2011 OK CR 25, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799 (quoting W.C.P. v. State, 1990 OK CR 24, ¶ 9, 791 P.2d 97, 100); accord C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. ¶8 In making......
  • J.T.A. v. State, Case Number: J-2018-13
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 24, 2018
    ...trial court abused its discretion in granting the State's motion to sentence Appellant as an adult. A.R.M. v. State , 2011 OK CR 25, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799 ; W.C.P. v. State , 1990 OK CR 24, ¶ 9, 791 P.2d 97, 100 ; C.L.F. v. State , 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. To wit:An "abuse of......
  • State v. K.B., JS-2022-348
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 22, 2022
    ...denying the State's motion to certify Appellee as eligible for imposition of an adult sentence. See A.R.M. v. State, 2011 OK CR 25, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d 797, 799; C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. An "abuse of discretion" has been defined by Court as a clearly erroneous concl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT