Case Title: IN THE MATTER OF M.B.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 102908

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF M.B.  IN THE MATTER OF M.B. 2006 OK 63 145 P.3d 1040 Case Number: 102908 Decided: 09/12/2006 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE MATTER OF M.B., A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, JUVENILE DIVISION Honorable Roger H. Stuart, Trial Judge ¶0 Nineteen year old M.B. pled guilty to a crime he committed at age seventeen, on August 23, 2005. As part of a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him as a youthful offender and extended its jurisdiction over him until he reached the age of twenty. The Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA) filed a Motion to Reconsider or Vacate, arguing that the order was an unlawful extension of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, and the OJA appealed. We hold that jurisdiction lies with the Court of Criminal Appeals and transfer the cause. CAUSE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. Dorothy Brown, Richard D. Olderbak, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant. Benjamin C. Brown, William McKinney, Patrick Garrison, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee. KAUGER, J. : ¶1 The dispositive issue presented is whether the Court of Criminal Appeals has appellate jurisdiction to review a juvenile court's order extending jurisdiction over a youthful offender to age twenty in the absence of a pre-birthday review hearing. We determine that it does and that the cause should be transferred to it. FACTS ¶2 M.B. was born August 18, 1986. On June 12, 2004, at age seventeen, he and another youth assaulted a pizza delivery man with a bat and a brick, robbing him of the cash and the pizza he was carrying. On September 28, 2004, M.B. was charged with Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon. ¶3 The OJA objected to the extension of jurisdiction by filing a Motion to Reconsider or Vacate on September 2, 2005. At a hearing on October 4, 2005, the Court denied the OJA's motion and ordered M.B. to be placed under the supervision of the OJA. ¶4 The trial court filed its final order denying the OJA's Motion to Reconsider or Vacate and committed M.B. to the OJA's supervision on December 22, 2005. On December 29, 2005, the OJA appealed to this Court and on January 4, 2006, we ordered the OJA to explain why the Court of Criminal Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The OJA responded on January 11, 2006, we retained the appeal on February 6, 2006, and the briefing cycle was completed on June 12, 2006. THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAS APPELLATE JURISDICTION. ¶5 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over this cause. Because we find that the Court of Criminal Appeals has appellate jurisdiction, we need not discuss whether: 1) the order is appealable; 2) the OJA has standing to bring the appeal; and 3) the order was lawfully made. ¶6 At the outset, we note that if an offender is sentenced while under the age of eighteen, and remains under the supervision or in the custody of the OJA, the trial court is required to hold a "pre-birthday" review hearing within thirty days of the offender's eighteenth birthday pursuant to 10 O.S. 2001 §7306-2.10 (D). ¶7 The irregular aspect of this case is that M.B. was nineteen when the plea agreement was accepted---- before the OJA had been ordered to supervise M.B., and before M.B. had begun any rehabilitation plan. The OJA contends that unless it moves to extend jurisdiction under 10 O.S. 2001 §7306-2.10 (F)(6) ¶8 Appellate jurisdiction is the power and jurisdiction to review and correct those proceedings of inferior courts brought for determination in the manner provided by law. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be co-extensive with the State and shall extend to all cases at law and in equity; except that the Court of Criminal Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases until otherwise provided by statute and in the event there is any conflict as to jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall determine which court has jurisdiction and such determination shall be final. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to a general superintendent control over all inferior courts and all Agencies, Commissions and Boards created by law. The Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, in criminal matters and all other appellate courts shall have power to issue, hear and determine writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition and such other remedial writs as may be provided by law and may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be conferred by statute. . . . The line of demarcation between reviewing jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals is not a legislative matter, but a constitutional issue to be determined by this Court. Therefore, jurisdictional limits of this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals are set and defined by this Court, not the Court of Criminal Appeals. ¶9 OJA contends that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 10 O.S. 2001 §7303-6.2 (A). Section 7303-6.2(A) is located in part 6 of Article Three of the Juvenile Code, Any decree or order made pursuant to the provisions of this article may be modified by the court at any time. An order certifying the juvenile as an adult shall not be modified. Section 7303-6.2 provides: Any interested party aggrieved by any order or decree may appeal to the Supreme Court in the same manner as other appeals are taken to the Supreme Court of this state; provided, however, that appeals taken from a trial court's decision in a proceeding for an adjudication of juvenile delinquency or in a proceeding certifying a juvenile to stand trial as an adult or denying such certification shall be taken to the Court of Criminal Appeals in the same manner as other appeals are taken to the Court of Criminal Appeals of this state, and provided further that an order either certifying a juvenile to stand trial as an adult or denying such certification shall be a final order, appealable when entered. ¶10 This Court construed §7303-6.2(A) ¶11 In Carder, the Court addressed questions of juvenile delinquency and custody, but the instant cause involves a youthful offender. ¶12 The Youthful Offender Act provides for the appealability of and appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals over an order granting or denying certification of a person charged with Murder in the First Degree as a youthful offender. ¶13 In the absence of a statute to the contrary, Okla. Const. art. 7, §4 limits the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals to criminal cases. CONCLUSION ¶14 Section 7303-6.2(A) is part of the delinquency provisions of the Juvenile Code and appealability to this Court under §7303-6.2(A) is limited to those provisions. The Youthful Offender Act governs criminal proceedings of youthful offenders. This case arises out of and relates to a criminal case involving a youthful offender. Nothing in the Youthful Offender Act specifically directs an appeal of this type of order to the Supreme Court. Because this appeal arose out of a criminal case, we determine that the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, we order this cause transferred to the Court of Criminal Appeals. CAUSE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT