Case Name: Bob ARNOLD, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, State of Oklahoma, and Honorable George Van Wagner, Special Judge, Respondents
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1969-11-12
Citations: 462 P.2d 335
Docket Number: No. A-15395
Parties: Bob ARNOLD, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, State of Oklahoma, and Honorable George Van Wagner, Special Judge, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 462
Pages: 335–336

Head Matter:
Bob ARNOLD, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, State of Oklahoma, and Honorable George Van Wagner, Special Judge, Respondents.
No. A-15395.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Nov. 12, 1969.
Don Hamilton, Hamilton & Carson, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.
John L. Clifton, Dist. Atty., Pottawatomie County, for respondents.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
This is an original proceeding in which Bob Arnold has petitioned this Court for a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, from proceeding to conduct a preliminary examination in Case No. CRF 69-110, in which the petitioner has been charged with the offense of indecent exposure. A rule to show cause was issued and in response, the State filed a motion to dismiss. The petitioner and respondents were ordered to submit briefs in support of their positions and the same have been received and considered by the Court.
It appears that at the time petitioner's case came before the District Court of Pottawatomie County for preliminary ex-, amination before the Honorable George Van Wagner, Special Judge, on June 9, 1969, the petitioner by counsel, Mr. R. Michael Cantrell, waived examination and agreed to be bound over to the District Court for trial. The State, by District Attorney, Mr. John L. Clifton, declined to waive preliminary examination and the examining magistrate ruled against waiver of the preliminary examination and was prepared to hear the evidence of the State. On motion of the petitioner, the examining magistrate then adjourned the preliminary examination in order that petitioner might file with this Court for a Writ of Prohibition.
The issue presented in this application is whether an affirmative waiver by an accused of the right to a preliminary examination operates to preclude conducting of such a hearing when the State does not wish to waive the preliminary examination.
In Lyon v. State, 55 Okl.Cr. 226, 28 P.2d 598 (1934), this Court held:
"It has been the universal holding of this court, even though the defendant may waive a preliminary examination, the state has the right to hold one and have its testimony recorded. Haley v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 145, 200 P. 1009; McCurdy v. State, 39 Okl.Cr. 310, 264 P. 925."
After a review of these proceedings and the appropriate law, we are unaware of any authority which has expressly rejected the ruling of this Court in Lyon v. State, supra, or which impliedly would require reconsideration of the decision rendered therein. It is true that a number of decisions of this Court have held that a preliminary examination is in the "nature of a personal privilege for the benefit of the accused which may be waived by him." Flowers v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 191, 251 P.2d 530 (1952). However, the reasoning in these cases is that an accused must exercise this personal privilege or he will waive the right to such. The Oklahoma Constitution, Article II, Section 17, provides in part:
"No person shall be prosecuted for a felony by information without having had a preliminary examination before a magistrate, or having waived such preliminary examination."
We find no constitutional infirmity if a preliminary examination is held although the defendant attempted to waive such. There is nothing in any case that we can find which suggests that waiver of the preliminary examination by the accused precludes the conducting of such. Nor do we find anything in the brief of the petitioner which would require a holding to that effect. Accordingly, having carefully considered all the issues raised herein, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to sustain his burden and that the motion to dismiss by the State should be sustained.
This application was referred to the Court Referee, Mr. Penn Lerblance, and his findings and conclusions of law set forth herein, after careful consideration, have been adopted by Presiding Judge Brett and Judge Bussey.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition for a Writ of Prohibition be denied.