Case Title: LEFTWICH v. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 109609

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
LEFTWICH v. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS  LEFTWICH v. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 2011 OK 80 Case Number: 109609 Decided: 09/19/2011 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. DEBORAH ANN LEFTWICH, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent, and STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Real Party In Interest, and OKLAHOMA STATE SENATE and BRIAN BINGMAN, Senate President Pro Tempore, Amicus Curiae. ORDER ¶1 Petitioner seeks from this Court an extraordinary writ of prohibition, or in the alternative an extraordinary writ of mandamus, for the purpose of controlling the discretion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in its interpretation of Article 5 § 22 of the Oklahoma Constitution in an order of that court filed June 9, 2011, in Leftwich v. Alcorn, PR-2011-319. ¶2 The Supreme Court heard oral argument from the Petitioner, Real Party in Interest, and Amicus Curiae. Counsel for Petitioner, counsel for the Real Party in Interest, and counsel for Amicus Curiae all agreed during oral argument that certain issues raised herein were not raised, or were not adequately raised, before the Court of Criminal Appeals in PR-2011-319, and that the interpretation of Art. 5 § 22 by the Court of Criminal Appeals was both truncated and in some respects erroneous. All counsel agreed that a portion of the order issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals, specifically; "[t]he Speech and Debate Clause in the Oklahoma Constitution includes an express exception for felonies. Okla. Const. Art. V, § 22,1" should not be enforced as the parties perceive that portion of the order to be a mistake of law in the underlying criminal proceeding in the District Court of Oklahoma County. ¶3 Upon consideration of the agreement of counsel for the parties during oral argument and this Court's review of the order of the Court of Criminal Appeals, in PR-2011-319, we decline to assume original jurisdiction in order to allow the parties the opportunity to seek the appropriate relief in the Court of Criminal Appeals. This Court thus need not address the scope of Article 5 § 22 of the Oklahoma Constitution or any issues of jurisdiction relating to the effect of the Court of Criminal Appeals order in PR-2011-319 or this Court's supervisory writ jurisdiction over the Court of Criminal Appeals. ¶4 We decline to assume original jurisdiction. Okla. Const. Art. 7 § 4. On July 28, 2011, this Court issued a stay of the trial court proceedings in CF-2010-8067, District Court of Oklahoma County. The stay issued by our order of July 28th is hereby dissolved. ¶5 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 19TH DAY SEPTEMBER 2011. /S/CHIEF JUSTICE ¶6 CONCUR: TAYLOR, C.J., COLBERT, V.C.J., KAUGER, EDMONDSON, COMBS, JJ. ¶7 CONCURRING IN PART; DISSENTING IN PART: WINCHESTER (It is emphatically the province and duty of the Court of Criminal Appeals to say what the law is in a criminal matter. I would dismiss the Petitioner's application to assume original jurisdiction for lack of jurisdiction to review an order by the Court of Criminal Appeals in an undisputed criminal matter over which that court had exclusive jurisdiction. Art. 7 § 4, Okla. Const.; In the Matter of M.B., 2006 OK 63, ¶ 8, 145 P.3d 1040 , 1044.), J. ¶8 DISSENT: WATT (by separate writing), REIF (by separate writing), JJ. ¶9 DISQUALIFIED: GURICH, J. FOOT