Opinion ID: 1150202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: right of appellate review by the council from adverse decision

Text: Rule 1.10(c)(1), Rules of Appellate Procedure, 12 O.S. Ch. 15,  App. 2, provides in part: An appeal ... to review a sentence imposed for contempt of court occurring in a civil action or proceeding shall be brought in the Supreme Court . . Judge Anonymous urges that by reason of 12 O.S. 1971, § 990, the above cited rule has the force and effect of statute. Section 990 provides: The Supreme Court shall provide by court rules, which will have the force [and effect] of statute ... the procedure to be followed for the completion and submission of the appeal taken hereunder. Transok Pipe Line v. Darks, Okl., 515 P.2d 218, 219 (1973) is cited in support of the motion to dismiss. Transok holds that all appeals to the Supreme Court are governed by 12 O.S. 1971, § 990. However, in Transok, we were dealing with a jurisdictional defect in the appeal by reason of failure to lodge the appeal within the time provided by 52 O.S. 1971, § 113. The appeal herein is timely brought. The thrust of Judge Anonymous' proposition is simply that there was no conviction for contempt, therefore there could be no appeal. We are not here concerned with a final order or judgment entered by the Council on Judicial Complaints, but we are asked to review a final order of a District Court. Appellate review from a final order or judgment of a district court is authorized by statute. 12 O.S. 1971, § 990. While no appeal is specifically provided for from an adjudication of not guilty for contempt, nonetheless, Article VII, Sec. 4, Okl.Const., provides in part: The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to a general superintending control over all inferior courts and all Agencies, Commissions and Boards created by law. While this Court has been conservative in exercising the full powers vested in it by Art. VII, § 4, supra, the exigencies of the circumstances in this case compel us to determine the issues now before us by granting appellate review of the judgment of the district judge assigned to hear the matter. Appellate review is granted because we are treating a case of first impression and the judges of this state, as well as the Council on Judicial Complaints, must have definitive guidelines in order to function with consistency. Further, it is in the public interest to see that judicial integrity is preserved within Oklahoma by maintaining a viable agency where legitimate complaints concerning the conduct of any person occupying a position in the judicial branch of government may be efficiently and impartially investigated.