State v. District Court of Oklahoma County, No. PR-2006-1305.

• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
• Citation: 2007 OK CR 3,154 P.3d 84
• Decision Date: 20 February 2007
• Parties: The STATE of Oklahoma, Petitioner v. The DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, The Honorable D. Fred Doak, Special Judge, Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. PR-2006-1305.

154 P.3d 84 2007 OK CR 3 The STATE of Oklahoma, Petitioner
v.
The DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, The Honorable D. Fred Doak, Special Judge, Respondent. No. PR-2006-1305. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. February 20, 2007.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, DENYING REQUEST FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND LIFTING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

¶ 1 On December 19, 2006, Petitioner, the State of Oklahoma, by and through Assistant District Attorney, Patrick M. Garrison, Oklahoma County, filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in Case No. CF-2006-5046 in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The State requests this Court issue a Writ of Prohibition preventing the District Court of Oklahoma County, the Honorable D. Fred Doak, Special Judge from "proceeding with the consideration of Youthful Offender Study in the subject case." Petitioner's Application for Writ of Prohibition is DENIED.

¶ 2 On July 15, 2006, Dawan Gillbreath was shot and killed. On August 3, 2006, the State filed First Degree Murder charges against defendants Earnest Martel Ogles, 17, Cordarell M. Ogles, 16 and Cornelius Montrell Ogles, 15. On August 7, 2006, the Oklahoma Public Defender filed Motions for Certification as a Juvenile and Motions for Certification as a Youthful Offender on behalf of each defendant. On August 10, 2006, Judge Doak set the matter for preliminary hearing (October 20, 2006) and ordered the Office of Juvenile Affairs (O.J.A.) to prepare a certification study on each defendant.

¶ 3 On September 18, 2006, the State, in conjunction with O.J.A., filed a Motion to Reconsider, seeking reconsideration of Judge Doak's original order granting the request for a certification study. The State and O.J.A.

154 P.3d 85

alleged that in light of Senate Enrolled Bill 1760 (Amendments to 10 O.S. §§ 7306-2.2 and 7306-2.5) signed into law on June 17, 2006, effective July 1, 2006, the defendants were no longer entitled to seek certification as either juveniles or youthful offenders. The applicable statutory amendment eliminated the provision allowing persons over the age of 14 charged with First Degree Murder to seek Youthful Offender status. See, Senate Enrolled Bill 1760, Amendments to 10 O.S. §§ 7306-2.2 and 7306-2.5. The amendment required that individuals aged 15, 16 and 17 charged with First Degree Murder be tried as adults.

¶ 4 On November 22, 2006, Judge Doak denied the motion, finding that Senate Enrolled Bill 1765, Amendments to 10 O.S. §§ 7306-2.2 and 7306-2.5, also signed into law on June 17, 2006 (two minutes after the signing of Senate Enrolled Bill 1760) retained the provision allowing persons aged 13 through 17 charged with First Degree Murder to seek certification as a youthful offender. The District Court noted that the statutes appeared to be contradictory, and directed that certification studies be conducted on all three defendants until the matter could be further clarified by this Court. Judge Doak directed O.J.A. to report to him concerning the status of the certification studies on December 20, 2006.

¶ 5 The State argues that the amended statute clearly excludes the defendants from the class of individuals allowed to seek Youthful Offender certification and requests this Court reverse the District Court's directive ordering that certification studies be conducted.

¶ 6 On December 20, 2006, this Court issued an order directing the respondent, the Honorable D. Fred Doak, Special Judge, or his designated representative, to file a response to Petitioner's application. The Respondent was directed to address Petitioner's claim that the defendants are not entitled to seek certification as Youthful Offenders in light of the Senate Enrolled Bill 1760 amendments to 10 O.S. §§ 7306-2.2 and 7306-2.5. The response was filed January 17, 2007. We now address Petitioner's application for extraordinary relief.

¶ 7 Although the two amendments to 10 O.S. §§ 7306-2.2 and 7306-2.5 signed into law contain conflicting provisions, the State argues rules of statutory construction require that the amendments be construed together, instead of finding that one statute repeals the other.¹ While the latest enactment of a statute will generally prevail, the State argues that in construing statutes passed in the same session of the Legislature, and at nearly the same time, there is a strong presumption against implied repeals.²

¶ 8 The State claims the amended provisions of 10 O.S. §§ 7306-2.2 and 7606-2.5 do not conflict. Rather, it argues that the two amendments change separate provisions of the same statute, and in no way indicate that the enactment of the second amendment was meant to nullify the provision in the first amendment changing the age of Youthful Offender status for individuals charged with First Degree Murder. If the second statutory amendment does not nullify the change made by the first statutory amendment, then the defendants charged with First Degree Murder in Case No. CF-2006-5046 are not eligible to seek Youthful Offender Status, and the District Court's order that a Youthful Offender certification study be conducted should be prohibited.

¶ 9 The response to the State's application was filed by the Oklahoma County Public Defender's office (counsel for defendants Earnest Ogles and Cornelius Ogles) and Scott Adams (counsel for defendant Cordarell Ogles), on behalf of the Respondent. In addition to responding to the application, counsel requested that this matter be set for oral argument. The request for oral argument is DENIED.

¶ 10 Respondents argue that Senate Bill 1760 and 1765 are in direct conflict with each other, and cannot be reconciled. Because Senate Bill 1765 was passed by the Legislature

154 P.3d 86

and signed into law by the Governor after Senate Bill 1760, the provisions in Senate Bill 1765 are controlling, and constitute current law. Under the provisions of Senate Bill 1765, the defendants are still entitled to seek certification as Youthful Offenders.

¶ 11 Respondents further claim that pursuant to Oklahoma law, when two statutes affecting or amending the same provisions of any code, title, chapter or article are in conflict, the provisions of latter amendment prevail as to...