Va. Underwood v. State Bd. of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters

• Docket Number: 121667
• Decision Date: 12 December 2023
• Parties: VIRGINIA UNDERWOOD, Complainant, v. STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS, Respondent.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

2023 OK 118

VIRGINIA UNDERWOOD, Complainant,
v.
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS, Respondent.

No. 121667

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

December 12, 2023

THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

Appeal from the Oklahoma State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters

Virginia Underwood, pro se.

Emily Isbill, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, Respondent.

KANE, C.J.

¶0 Petitioner Virginia Underwood filed a complaint against Certified Shorthand Reporter Joseph Shewmaker with the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters (the Board). The Board reviewed the complaint and determined formal disciplinary proceedings were not warranted. Underwood has appealed the Board's decision. We affirm the Board's decision and dismiss this cause.

¶1 Virginia Underwood filed a complaint against Certified Shorthand Reporter Joseph Shewmaker with the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters (the Board) on August 21, 2023, pursuant to Rule 5, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, 20 O.S.2011, ch. 20, app. 2. Underwood asserted that the transcript of the June 6, 2023 hearing in State of Oklahoma v. Joseph Jerome Dennis, CF-1996-112, in Grady County District Court, provided by CSR Shewmaker was not a true and correct account of the proceedings. Specifically, Underwood complained that "the records have been altered, because they do not reflect any of the objections made by Mr. Dennis." Underwood further complained that CSR Shewmaker would not make available the audio recording of the hearing in order for her to prove the transcript was incomplete and inaccurate.

¶2 The Board determined that formal disciplinary proceedings were not warranted and notified Underwood of its decision on October 5, 2023. The Board explained that it does not handle disputes regarding the correctness of a trial transcript and indicated issues involving the correctness of a transcript should be resolved by the trial court. Underwood filed a petition for review of the Board's decision on October 12, 2023.

¶3 On appeal, Underwood argues the Board should have conducted an investigation into the accuracy and completeness of the transcript and held a formal disciplinary hearing to compare the...