Title: SPENCER v. WYRICK
Citation: 2017 OK 19
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: March 7, 2017

SPENCER v. WYRICK Annotate this Case SPENCER v. WYRICK 2017 OK 19 Case Number: 115765 Decided: 03/07/2017 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. SUSAN SPENCER and CHERI CHANDLER, Petitioners, v. JUSTICE PATRICK WYRICK, Respondent. APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF ¶0 Petitioners filed this original proceeding to challenge Governor Fallin's recent appointment of Respondent, Justice Patrick Wyrick, to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Upon consideration, we assume original jurisdiction and dismiss the action with prejudice. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; ACTION DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE Ryan D. Kiesel, Brady R. Henderson, ACLU of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Attorneys for Petitioners Neal Leader, Special Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Attorney for Respondent PER CURIAM ¶1 Petitioners, who allege they are residents and registered voters "of the Second Supreme Court District," filed this proceeding to contest Governor Fallin's recent appointment of Respondent, Justice Patrick Wyrick, to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Petitioners challenge Justice Wyrick's eligibility to sit as a Justice on this Court and request quo warranto relief, or in the alternative, a writ of prohibition, barring Justice Wyrick from exercising "authority of an office to which he is constitutionally ineligible." Because this cause is publici juris, we assume original jurisdiction. See also Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4 ("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."). ¶2 Prohibition is not available as a corrective remedy to undo a completed act, and is not available to try the title to an office. Sneed v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 1983 OK 69, ¶ 11, 683 P.2d 525 , 529; State ex rel. Rucker v. Tapp, 1963 OK 37, ¶ 28, 380 P.2d 260 , 267. "[A]n action in the nature of quo warranto will be deemed to constitute the exclusive remedy" to try the title to an office.1 The law is unequivocally clear that a proper plaintiff in a quo warranto proceeding is the Attorney General, the District Attorney, or a contestant for the office at issue.2 A "collateral attack by a private individual is not permitted."3 Absolutely no facts were pled suggesting that either of the Petitioners is entitled to the office of Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. This proceeding is clearly a collateral attack by a private individual and is not permitted. ¶3 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto per 12 O.S. 2011 § 1532 and to issue writs of prohibition per Article 7, § 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Petitioners concede that under the Oklahoma Constitution neither the Senate acting as a court of impeachment nor the Court on the Judiciary has jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the qualifications of a sitting Justice by quo warranto or any other means. We agree. The untimely nature of this action4 and the Petitioners' lack of standing require dismissal of this action with prejudice. The Respondent's request for fees and costs is denied. Any petition for rehearing must be filed by 5:00 p.m., Friday, March 10, 2017. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; ACTION DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ¶4 Combs, C.J., Gurich, V.C.J., Kauger, Winchester, Colbert, and Reif (by separate writing), JJ., concur. ¶5 Watt (by separate writing), and Edmondson (by separate writing), JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. ¶6 Wyrick, J., not present and not participating. FOOT