Ransdell v. State

• Decision Date: 13 December 2013
• Docket Number: Case Number: 111589
• Citation: 2013 OK 106
• Parties: JOHN DAVID RANSDELL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and JUSTIN JONES as individually and as director, and JOHN DOE, all members of the Sex Offender Level Assignment Committee, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

2013 OK 106

JOHN DAVID RANSDELL, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,and JUSTIN JONES as individually and as director, and JOHN DOE, all members of the Sex Offender Level Assignment Committee, Defendants/Appellees.

Case Number: 111589

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Decided: December 13, 2013

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISPOSITION

¶1 In this case, the record reflects Plaintiff/Appellant, John David Ransdell came to Oklahoma in 1999,¹ well before the contested 2007-2008 sex offender level assignment system² was enacted in Oklahoma. In our recent decision in Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, 305 P.3d 1004, we determined the level assignment system is not to be applied retroactively and the applicable version of the Sex Offenders Registration Act, 57 O.S., § 581 et seq., is the one in place when an out-of-state sex offender enters Oklahoma with the intent "to 'be in the state' for the requisite period . . . .³ " This case is dispositive of the issues presented.

¶2 Rule 1.201 of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules provides that "[i]n any case in which it appears that a prior controlling appellate decision is dispositive of the appeal, the court may summarily affirm or reverse, citing in its order of summary disposition this rule and the controlling decision. At any time during the pendency of the appeal any party may move for summary disposition, citing the prior controlling decision. The motion shall be served on opposing counsel who may respond within ten (10) days. Thereafter, the court may enter an order summarily affirming, reversing, or denying the motion." Okla. Stat. tit. 12, chap. 15, app. 2 (Supp. 1997).

¶3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the district court's Journal Entry of Judgment filed February 15, 2013, is hereby reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, 305 P.3d 1004.

¶4 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 12th day of December, 2013.

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5 COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, EDMONDSON, COMBS and GURICH, JJ., concur

¶6 WINCHESTER and TAYLOR, JJ., dissent

¶7 TAYLOR, J., with whom WINCHESTER, J., joins, dissenting

I dissent for the same reasons that I stated in my dissent in Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, 305 P.3d 1004.

1. Exhibit 4, attached to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, is a letter dated August 19, 2011, from Ransdell's attorneys to Lawana Hamrick at the Department of Corrections. In the letter it states...