Court Opinion

ID: 9547180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:42:51.039735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:25.407334
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Judge,
special concurring:
This is truly a case of frustration. During oral argument you could tell that everyone in the courtroom was frustrated. When you read this Order and the two dissents, it is easy to see that all the members of this Court are frustrated. The problem has to do with overcrowding in our prison system and, quite frankly, the Legislature not appropriating sufficient funds to provide for the incarceration that the judicial system and the juries of this State are giving to criminal defendants.
I specially concur herein but go on record as agreeing with both the dissents of Judge Chapel and Judge Strubhar in many respects. There is pending legislation that may at least for the foreseeable future solve this particular problem. The Legislature and the Executive branches should have additional time to see if they cannot cure the frustration of all the parties, especially the jurors of this State. Judge Chapel is correct when he notes that the judicial branch has the exclusive power to try individuals and to enter judgments and sentences after appropriate trial. The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma has agreed that this Court has jurisdiction over these matters. Therefore, in the event the Legislature and the Executive do not solve this problem, the Court may have to step in and solve the problem for those branches. This Judge does not relish the idea of running the court system as the Tenth Circuit has recently done. Harris v. Champion, 938 F.2d 1062 (10th Cir.1991), on remand, 15 F.3d 1538 (10th Cir.1994); Hill v. Reynolds, 942 F.2d 1494 (10th Cir.1991). It may well be that this is the only alternative that this Court will have but for now, I will specially concur in the Order.