W.C.P. v. State, No. J-89-1328

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtLUMPKIN; LANE
Citation791 P.2d 97
PartiesW.C.P., a Delinquent Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. J-89-1328
Decision Date20 April 1990

Page 97

791 P.2d 97
W.C.P., a Delinquent Child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. J-89-1328.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
April 20, 1990.
As Corrected April 23, 1990.

Page 98

An Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Russell Hall, Special Judge.

W.C.P., Appellant, was certified to stand trial as an adult by the juvenile division of the District Court of Oklahoma County for Rape in the First Degree in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 1114, Case No. JF-89-1924, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 801, Case No. JF-89-1923, and Concealing Stolen Property in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 1713, JF-89-1987. At the prosecutive merit hearing held on September 25, 1989, Appellant stipulated that if evidence were presented by the State the Court would find prosecutive merit in all of the cases, JF-89-1923, JF-89-1924 and JF-89-1987. REVERSED and REMANDED.

William R. McKinney, Asst. Public Defender, Juvenile Div., Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Robert H. Macy, Dist. Atty., Jane Johnanningsmeier, Asst. Dist. Atty., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

LUMPKIN, Judge:

Appellant, W.C.P. was certified to stand trial as an adult by the juvenile division of the District Court of Oklahoma County for Rape in the First Degree in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 1114, Case No. JF-89-1924, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 801, Case No. JF-89-1923, and Concealing Stolen Property in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 1713, JF-89-1987. At the time the offenses were committed the Appellant was fifteen (15) years old.

A juvenile may be certified to stand trial as an adult upon two findings by the trial court: First, that there is prosecutive merit to the complaint, that is, a finding that a crime has been committed and probable cause to believe the accused juvenile committed it; and second, that the juvenile is not amenable to rehabilitation within the existing juvenile system. C.J.W. v. State, 732 P.2d 908 (Okl.Cr.1987); In re E.O., 703 P.2d 192, 193 (Okl.Cr.1985); 10 O.S.1981, § 1112. The record reflects that on September 25, 1989, after an offer of proof and stipulation, prosecutive merit was found by the Court in JF-89-1923, JF-89-1924 and JF-89-1987. (O.R. 9, 38, 52). On October 24, 1989, the trial judge certified the Appellant as an adult finding that although he had no prior contact with the juvenile justice system the First Degree Rape, coupled with the robbery, was violent, serious and premeditated; that W.C.P. understood right from wrong but had a lack of empathy for others; and in terms of protecting the public, found the vicious and serious nature of the offense made the possibility of rehabilitation a gamble. (TR 35, 36)

In his sole assignment of error, Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the juvenile to stand trial as an adult in that there was insufficient evidence to show that the juvenile was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system. Since Appellant only challenges the finding that he was not amenable to rehabilitation and not the District Court's finding of prosecutive merit, we do not find it necessary to discuss all the facts. However, it must be noted that the record is void of any evidence relating to the commission of the charged offenses. The record reflects only a stipulation that if evidence were presented the court would find prosecutive merit for each charge.

The finding that a child is not amenable for rehabilitation is a discretionary decision to be made by the judge, but the decision must be based on substantial evidence against the child's claim to the benefit of juvenile treatment. In re E.O. 703 P.2d 192, 193 (Okl.Cr.1985). This Court in Calhoon v. State, 548 P.2d 1037 (Okl.Cr.1976), reiterated the definition of substantial evidence set forth in Corbin v. United

Page 99

States, 253 F.2d 646, 649 (10th Cir.1958), as follows: (Emphasis added)

Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla. It must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established. We must consider the case as a whole and not piecemeal. The lines of proof must be considered together, not separately. Even if each line of proof taken by itself is of insufficient probative force, the conclusion does not necessarily follow that the proof taken as a whole is insufficient. The lines of proof interweave and support each other.

The pertinent statute is 10 O.S.1981, § 1112. Section 1112(a) contains a requirement that children be tried for the violation of a state statute or municipal ordinance in a juvenile proceeding, unless the offense is one listed in 10 O.S.1981, § 1104.2, and the juvenile is sixteen (16) years of age, or the criteria for certification as an adult set forth in Section 1112(b) have been proved and the court enunciates the factors which authorize the juvenile to be certified. Specifically, Section 1112(b) sets...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Ex parte J.D.G.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 21 Agosto 1992
    ...(1985); In re Welfare of S.E.M., 421 N.W.2d 369 (Minn.Ct.App.1988); Matter of B.D.C., 211 Mont. 216, 687 P.2d 655 (1984); W.C.P. v. State, 791 P.2d 97 (Okla.Crim.App.1990); S.H. v. State, 581 P.2d 916 (Okla.Crim.App.1978); Commonwealth v. McKee, 307 Pa.Super. 12, 452 A.2d 878 (1982); R.E.M.......
  • Ex parte J.R.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 1 Marzo 1991
    ...1977); Matter of Tacy, 427 N.E.2d 919 (Ind.App.1981); Matter of Le Blanc, 171 Mich.App. 405, 430 N.W.2d 780 (1988); W.C.P. v. State, 791 P.2d 97 (Okla.Crim.App.1990); State in Interest of R.W., 717 P.2d 258 (Utah 3 Because juvenile courts commonly hold the probable cause and dispositional p......
  • C.R.B. v. State, No. J
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 5 Enero 1999
    ...standard of review for use on appeal, the standard was abuse of discretion under the previous reverse certification law. W.C.P v. State, 791 P.2d 97, 100 (Okl.Cr.1990). An "abuse of discretion" is a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect ......
  • State v. J.B., JS-2022-127
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 25 Agosto 2022
    ...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 its determination, the trial court is to consider seven sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Ex parte J.D.G.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 21 Agosto 1992
    ...(1985); In re Welfare of S.E.M., 421 N.W.2d 369 (Minn.Ct.App.1988); Matter of B.D.C., 211 Mont. 216, 687 P.2d 655 (1984); W.C.P. v. State, 791 P.2d 97 (Okla.Crim.App.1990); S.H. v. State, 581 P.2d 916 (Okla.Crim.App.1978); Commonwealth v. McKee, 307 Pa.Super. 12, 452 A.2d 878 (1982); R.E.M.......
  • Ex parte J.R.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 1 Marzo 1991
    ...1977); Matter of Tacy, 427 N.E.2d 919 (Ind.App.1981); Matter of Le Blanc, 171 Mich.App. 405, 430 N.W.2d 780 (1988); W.C.P. v. State, 791 P.2d 97 (Okla.Crim.App.1990); State in Interest of R.W., 717 P.2d 258 (Utah 3 Because juvenile courts commonly hold the probable cause and dispositional p......
  • C.R.B. v. State, No. J
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 5 Enero 1999
    ...standard of review for use on appeal, the standard was abuse of discretion under the previous reverse certification law. W.C.P v. State, 791 P.2d 97, 100 (Okl.Cr.1990). An "abuse of discretion" is a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect ......
  • State v. J.B., JS-2022-127
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 25 Agosto 2022
    ...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 its determination, the trial court is to consider seven sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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