Young v. State, C--76--358
Decision Date | 23 June 1976 |
Docket Number | No. C--76--358,C--76--358 |
Citation | 553 P.2d 192 |
Parties | Terry Ray YOUNG, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Petitioner, Terry Ray Young, was convicted upon his plea of guilty in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF--75--2699, for the offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, in violation of 47 O.S.1971, § 4--102. Pursuant thereto, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to a term of imprisonment of eighteen (18) months. Petitioner timely filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, which upon hearing was overruled by the District Court, Tulsa County, and from this ruling the instant petition for writ of certiorari has been filed in this Court. We assume jurisdiction and proceed to dispose of the matter.
The instant appeal is predicated solely upon the contention that the trial court, at the sentencing hearing, erred in considering a presentence investigation and report 1 which contained specific references to the petitioner's prior juvenile record. The petitioner contends that consideration of a prior juvenile record is an improper consideration in determining what sentence will be imposed against an adult offender and such a consideration violates the statutory proscription in 10 O.S.1971, § 1127, and this Court's prior holding in Lauen v. State, Okl.Cr., 515 P.2d 578 (1973). Title 10 O.S.1971, § 1127, provides in pertinent part:
'. . . A disposition of any child under this Act, or any evidence given in such cause, shall not in any civil, criminal or other cause or proceeding in any court be lawful or proper evidence against the child for any purpose whatever, except in subsequent cases against the same child under this Act. . . .'
Petitioner alludes to this Court's language in Lauen v. State, supra, wherein the Court states:
Thus at issue is this Court's prior construction of 10 O.S.1971, § 1127, concluding that the statute prohibits use of an adult offender's prior juvenile record during an aggravation mitigation hearing as contemplated by 22 O.S.1971, § 973, 2 and the applicability of this construction to the use of a presentence investigation report containing the prior juvenile record of an adult offender before the court.
We are compelled to re-examine and ascertain the intent of the legislative enactment, 10 O.S.1971, § 1127, and the viability of our holding in Lauen v. State, supra.
Many states have statutory provisions comparably worded to 10 O.S.1971, § 1127, and its apparent restriction of the use of juvenile records. 3 Particularly instructive is the lengthy discourse in People v. McFarlin, 389 Mich. 557, 208 N.W.2d 504, 64 A.L.R.3d 1274 (1973), wherein a statute 4 comparably worded to 10 O.S.1971, § 1127, was construed not to prohibit a presentence investigation report from including information concerning the juvenile history of an adult offender. The court observed that decisions of other states although not controlling, revealed the clear weight of judicial authority is in favor of full disclosure of a defendant's past, including his juvenile court history, to the sentencing judge. People v. McFarlin, 208 N.W.2d 510; also see, 64 A.L.R.3d at 1295.
We note that the heretofore quoted portion of the language of 10 O.S.1971, § 1127, has been carried forward without substantial change since the legislative enactment in S.L.1909, Ch. 13, Art. I, § 594, which in pertinent part reads:
'. . . A disposition of any child under this Act or any evidence given in such cause, shall not in any civil, criminal or other cause or proceedings whatever in any court be lawful or proper evidence against such child for any purpose whatever, except in subsequent cases against the same child under this Act. . . .'
The intent of this particular statutory language obviously was formulated several decades prior to the enactment of the presentence investigation report procedure. 5 At the time of the drafting of this statutory language, the trial judge in determining the sentence, in a situation where discretion of sentence was conferred upon the court, would only have the alternative of hearing other evidence in mitigation or aggravation of punishment upon motion by either party. 6 Greater emphasis is now placed upon a particularized sentence for a particular individual, and this is evidenced by the enacted presentence investigation procedure and the particular statutes regarding the sentencing powers of the court. See, 22 O.S.1971, § 991a, et seq.
In Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), the Supreme Court of the United States stated:
(Footnotes omitted)
In People v. McFarlin, supra, the court observed:
Thus, the court concluded that a presentence investigation and report may contain the juvenile history of the adult offender. Also, in Berfield v. State, 458 P.2d 1008 (Alaska 1969), the Alaska court stated:
(Footnotes omitted)
In Walker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 239 (1973), the Texas Court observed:
We are of the opinion that the juvenile history of an adult offender is competent and relevant information of the social history of the adult offender and it is properly included in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
World Pub. Co. v. White
...or any adult criminal offense...." United States v. Carney, 106 F.3d 315, 317 (10th Cir.1997). 42. Young v. State, 1976 OK CR 153, ¶ 9, 553 P.2d 192. 43. United States v. Chacon, see note 38, supra [Where a juvenile is involved in a transaction leading to another's prosecution, the juvenile......
-
State v. Radi
...in sentencing hearings. For courts that have allowed the use of juvenile records in presentence investigation reports see Young v. State (Okl.Cr.1976), 553 P.2d 192; People v. McFarlin (1973), 389 Mich. 557, 208 N.W.2d 504; State v. Fierro (1966), 101 Ariz. 118, 416 P.2d The gravamen of the......
-
Bowman v. State
...except in subsequent cases before the juvenile court against the same child. Title 10 O.S.Supp.1977, § 1127(a). Also see, Young v. State, Okl.Cr., 553 P.2d 192 (1976); Lauen v. State, Okl.Cr., 515 P.2d 578 Furthermore, in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), ......
-
State ex rel. Whittaker v. Webber
...history, to the sentencing judge." See Commonwealth ex rel. Hendrickson v. Myers, 393 Pa. 224, 144 A.2d 367 (1958); Young v. State, 553 P.2d 192 (Okla.Cr.App.1976); Berfield v. State, 458 P.2d 1008 (Alaska 1969), and a collection of cases from other jurisdictions in Annot., 64 A.L.R.3d 1291......