Title: Burk v. Oklahoma

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

BURK v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS2013 OK 80Case Number: 108301Decided: 10/01/2013THE 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. 

JONATHAN CLARK BURK, Appellant,v.STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex 
rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE 
COUNTYHONORABLE MARK R. SMITHDISTRICT JUDGE
¶0 Appellant, a sex offender, filed a Motion to Override Risk Level 
Classification under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), 57 O.S., § 581 et seq. The trial court ruled it did not 
have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. We reverse and remand for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGSCONSISTENT WITH 
THIS OPINION
Jerry Kite, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for AppellantLarry Foster, II, 
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee
COMBS, J.
¶1 The record indicates the Appellant, Jonathan Clark Burk 
(hereinafter "Burk") pled no contest to sex offenses in New Mexico on April 20, 
1999.1 On May 20, 1999, Burk was sentenced to nine years 
incarceration with two years on parole on Count I and three years incarceration 
with two years on parole on Count II.2 All but four years of his sentence were suspended and 
upon his release Burk was to be placed on supervised probation for five years.3 
¶2 The record does not reflect when Burk entered Oklahoma and first became 
subject to the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), 57 O.S., § 581 et seq. However, on July 24, 2007, Burk 
began actual registration under SORA.4 Following Burk's initial registration, the Appellee, 
State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Corrections (hereinafter 
"Department"), notified Burk by letter, dated May 21, 2008, that he had been 
assigned a numeric risk level of three and would now, from May 21, 2008, have to 
register for life. Burk claims prior to this determination of a level assignment 
he was only required to register for ten years.
¶3 On October 19, 2009, Burk filed a Motion to Override Risk Level 
Classification and Brief in Support pursuant to 57 O.S. Supp. 2008, § 582.5 (D). Title 
57 O.S. Supp. 2008, § 
582.5 (D) provided as follows:
D. The risk assessment review committee, the Department of Corrections, or a 
court may override a risk level only if the entity: 
1. Believes that the risk level assessed is not an accurate prediction of the 
risk the offender poses to the community; and 2. Documents the reason for 
the override in the case file of the offender.
The statute provides no other guidelines on how this proceeding is to be 
commenced or conducted. Burk filed a motion to override rather than a petition. 
He claims he served the motion in a manner consistent with 12 O.S. Supp. 2008, § 2005, which pertains to 
service of a motion, rather than pursuant to 12 O.S. Supp. 2008, § 2004, which pertains to 
service of a summons and petition.
¶4 Less than two weeks after Burk filed his motion, new amendments to 
57 O.S. Supp. 2008, § 
582.5 (D) became effective. Effective November 1, 2009, amendments in HB 1509, 
2009 Okla. Sess. Laws c. 404, § 4, added the following language to the end of 
subsection (D):
Provided, in no event shall the sex offender level assignment 
committee, the Department of Corrections, or a court override and reduce a 
level assigned to an offender as provided in subsection C of this section. 
(Emphasis added).
The trial court issued an order filed October 23, 2009, wherein it found 
although this matter would not be heard before November 1, 2009, it was timely 
filed and the court had continuing jurisdiction to hear the matter beyond 
November 1, 2009.5 
¶5 On December 9, 2009, the Department filed a Special Appearance With Motion 
to Dismiss Petition. The Department asserted the legislature had divested the 
courts of the power or jurisdiction to reduce a level assigned to a sex offender 
because of the 2009 amendments to section 582.5 (D). Thereafter, on December 23, 
2009, the Department filed its Objection to Service and Motion to Reconsider or 
Withdraw Order from November 20, 2009.6 The Department asserted no summons was ever received 
nor shown to be delivered pursuant to 12 O.S., § 2004 and restated its previous assertion the 
November 1, 2009, amendments to Section 582.5 (D) were intended to be 
retroactive and the legislature had "withdrawn jurisdiction to lower a sex 
offender's level." 
¶6 On January 13, 2010, the trial court denied Burk's motion finding it 
lacked the jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The Journal Entry of 
Judgment did not address the Department's objection to service. On May 12, 2010, 
Burk commenced this appeal by filing a Combined Application to Assume Original 
Jurisdiction and Petition for Extraordinary Alternative Writ of 
Prohibition/Mandamus with this Court which was later recast as an appeal of a 
final order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7 An order dismissing a case for failure to state a claim upon which relief 
can be granted is subject to de novo review. Tuffy's, Inc. v. City of 
Oklahoma City, 2009 OK 4, ¶6, 212 P.3d 1158, 1162.
ANALYSIS
¶8 On appeal, the Department focuses on Burk's alleged failure to serve 
process as the reason for the trial court's ruling it lacked jurisdiction. 
However, the trial court did not state specifically why it lacked jurisdiction. 
The January 13, 2010, Journal Entry of Judgment concluded "[a]s this Court lacks 
the jurisdiction to grant the relief requested, Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer 
and Motion to Override his Risk Level Classification are hereby denied." A 
review of the record shows the Department's arguments relating to jurisdiction 
focused on the amendments to 57 O.S. 2008, § 582.5 (D).7 It appears from the 
record the trial court made its decision relying on the legislative amendments 
to section 582.5 (D) which removed the ability to reduce a level assignment. 

¶9 Appellant asserts he filed his Motion to Override prior to the November 1, 
2009, amendments to 582.5 (D), therefore the court retained jurisdiction to hear 
his motion. Burk relies upon Cole v. Silverado Foods, Inc., 
2003 OK 81, 78 P.3d 542, to support his position. In Cole, 
this Court held "[t]he statute in effect at the time of the filing governs the 
claim's substantive law" and "[i]t is unaffected by the impact of amendatory 
modification." Cole, 2003 OK 81 at ¶16. Article 5, Section 54 of the 
Oklahoma Constitution states, "[t]he repeal of a statute shall not revive a 
statute previously repealed by such statute, nor shall such repeal affect any 
accrued right, or penalty incurred, or proceedings begun by virtue of such 
repealed statute." In Cole we found the terms of Section 54 "protect from 
legislative extinguishment 'accrued rights' or 'proceedings begun' under a 
repealed or amended statute." Id. at ¶14. This Court interpreted 
"proceedings begun" to mean the "essential steps or measure to invoke, establish 
or vindicate a right." Id. This Court further found "the terms of the 
statute in effect at the time the claim is filed are constitutionally shielded 
from invasion by after-enacted legislation." Id. We find Burk timely 
filed his Motion to Override to reduce his level assignment and the November 1, 
2009, amendments eliminating the option to reduce a level assignment do not 
affect a proceeding already begun prior to the amendments' effective date. 
Therefore, the district court retained jurisdiction to modify Burk's level 
assignment.
¶10 Further, since this appeal was filed, this Court decided Starkey 
v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, 305 P.3d 1004. In Starkey we held the SORA level 
assignments were meant to be applied prospectively and not retroactively. 
Starkey also held the retroactive application of the level assignments to 
someone already registered would violate the ex post facto clause of the 
Oklahoma Constitution.8 The record indicates Burk first began registering under 
SORA on July 24, 2007. The law creating the level assignment system took effect 
on November 1, 2007.9 Therefore, pursuant to Starkey, the level 
assignments would not apply to Burk. There was never any need to have a 
modification hearing in the first place because the Department could not 
retroactively increase his registration period.
¶11 However, Starkey also held the controlling registration 
requirements are those which were in effect when an individual meeting the 
criteria of a sex offender, convicted in another jurisdiction, enters Oklahoma 
and becomes subject to SORA. Although the record indicates the date Burk began 
actual registration, July 24, 2007, it does not reflect when he first entered 
Oklahoma and became subject to SORA; nor does it reflect what provisions of SORA 
were applicable to him at that time. Burk believes he was only required to 
register for ten years. However, depending upon when he entered Oklahoma and 
became subject to SORA, this period may be ten years from the completion of his 
sentence rather than a flat ten year period.10 These issues remain to be determined by the trial court 
on remand. 
¶12 Therefore we hold, the trial court's Journal Entry of Judgment filed 
January 13, 2010, which found the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant 
the relief requested in Appellant's Motion to Override Risk Level Classification 
is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with 
Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, 305 P.3d 1004, and this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGSCONSISTENT WITH 
THIS OPINION
¶13 COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, EDMONDSON, COMBS, and 
GURICH, JJ., concur. 
¶14 WINCHESTER, J., dissenting: 
I dissent for the same reasons that I stated in my dissent in Starkey v. 
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, 305 P.3d 1004.
¶15 TAYLOR, J., dissenting: 
I dissent for the same reasons that I stated in my dissent in Starkey v. 
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, 305 P.3d 1004.
FOOTNOTES
1 This information is found 
in the Judgment, Sentence and Commitment filed May 21, 1999, in the Sixth 
Judicial District Court, Grant County, New Mexico, and attached to the Notice 
To Court filed on January 6, 2010, by the Appellee in the underlying cause 
of action CJ-2009-1072, District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. The 
Appellee alleges in its Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss Petition that 
Burk's crimes are analogous to "Lewd or Indecent Proposals/Acts to a Child" 
found in 21 O.S. § 
1123.
2 Burk was charged with criminal sexual penetration in 
the second degree, a lesser included offense to Count I, and criminal sexual 
contact of a minor, a third degree felony, charged in Count II.
3 The Judgment, Sentence and Commitment did not 
indicate whether each Count of his sentence was to run concurrently or 
consecutively. However, the Supreme Court of New Mexico has held unless a court 
or statute specifies otherwise, two or more sentences are to be served 
concurrently. Deats v. State, 503 P.2d 1183 (N.M. 1972). 
4 This is taken from the Oklahoma Department of 
Corrections' website and attached as exhibit 1 of the Appellee's, Department of 
Corrections Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss Petition, filed December 
4, 2009. 
5 This order was issued by another Comanche County, 
District Court Judge, Allen McCall, and not District Court Judge, Mark R. 
Smith.
6 The November 20, 2009, Order referred to, was the 
result of a hearing on Burk's motion to override which the Department failed to 
attend and where Judge Mark R. Smith found he could not make a meaningful 
decision on Burk's motion to override due to the court lacking information held 
by the Department. Judge Smith also ordered the Department to provide certain 
information and conduct certain duties including an evaluation of Burk to 
determine if he still posed a threat to re-offend. 
7 On appeal the Department asserts the court lacked 
jurisdiction because the Department was not properly served. However, if the 
trial court had dismissed this action because of failure to serve process it 
would have been premature. Burk filed his Motion to Override on October 19, 
2009. The Journal Entry of Judgment was filed on January 13, 2010. This is much 
less than the one hundred and eighty (180) days allowed by 12 O.S. Supp. 2009, § 2004 (I), to serve process 
prior to dismissal. 
8 Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of 
Corrections, 2013 OK 
43, ¶81, 305 P.3d 1004, 1031. 
9 HB 1760, 2007 Okla. Sess. Laws c.261 (effective Nov. 1, 
2007).
10 SB 1191, 2004 Okla. Sess. Laws c. 162, §1 (effective 
April 26, 2004) amended 57 O.S. Supp. 2003, § 583 to increase the SORA 
registration period to ten years "from the completion of the sentence".