Court Opinion

ID: 9821248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:55:43.693722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:42.936344
License: Public Domain

HUDSON, J.,
Specially Concurs.
T 1 I specially concur in today's Order. It provides not only-a proper reading of the constitutional and statutory provisions granting the Oklahoma, Court of Criminal Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all criminal cases but also illustrates the statutorily-based considerations unique to our eriminal law jurisprudence which warrant a departure from the Oklahoma Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 15(b), Rules for District Courts, 12 0.8.2011, Ch. 2, App., in civil cases. ;
12 I write separately to address the "elephant in the room" surrounding our decision today-namely, whether this Court truly has exelusive appellate jurisdiction in- all criminal cases or not? The Oklahoma Supreme Court entered an order on December 14, 2015, granting . Kurt Meyer declaratory relief through. an interpretation of Rule 15(b), Rules for District Courts, 12 0.8.2011, Ch. 2, App., which is directly contrary to application of our Rules to perfect an appeal.: See Meyer v. Smith, 2015 OK 86, 366 P.3d 811, In so doing, the 'Oklahomg Supreme Court boldly announced that its interpretation of Rule 15(b) shall apply "whether disqualification is sought in a civil or criminal case." Meyer, 2015 OK 36, ¶ 1, 366 P.3d 311 (emphasis added).
{8 Armed with published order, Meyer's defense attorneys (predictably) have re*43turned to our Court. demanding that we resurrect his time-barred mandamus action and proceed to the merits of his application to disqualify the assigned magistrate from hearing the preliminary hearing in his case. Perhaps this would be a routine procedural matter in other states. But in Oklahoma, the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction, . coextensive within the grits of the state, in all criminal cases and ay exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be conferred by statute-including jurisdiction over extraordinary relief applications like the one filed by Meyer. Okla. Const. art. VII, § 4; 20 0.8.2011, §§ 40-41. This is nothing new. Nor is it anything we have created for ourselves. This Court's very existence dates to statehood. Our exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all criminal cases has been mandated continuously since 1909 and has been a bedrock principle ever since. See Corley v. Adair County Court, 10 Okla.Crim. 104, 106, 1913 OK CR 267, 134 P. 835, 835-36 (discussing history and jurisdiction of Court of Criminal Appeals); Cook v. State, 37 Okla, 362, 1913 OK 276; 132 P. 341, 341-42 (same) The Oklahoma Supreme Court itself has recognized that:
[blecause the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in erim-inal matters and jurisdiction to issue supervisory writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, [the Court of Criminal Appeals] is the court which uses a writ power to' supervise a criminal matter in a criminal 'controversy or action, that is proceeding in the District Court.
Dutton v. City of Midwest City, 2015 OK 51, ¶ 29, 353 P.3d 532, 546 (emphasis in original). We have issued extraordinary writs in pending eriminal prosecutions in a variety of situations. See Hamill v. Powers, 2007 OK CR 26, ¶¶ 5-6, 164 P.3d 1083, 1085-86.
T4 This unique constitutional and statutory mandate establishes the Court of Criminal Appeals "in fact and in law the Supreme Court of the state in all criminal cases...." Corley, 10 Okl.Cr. at 106, 134 P. at 836. Any other construction of these provisions "would result in conflicts and confusion in the administration of the criminal laws of the state upon the well-recognized principle that two bodies of equal density cannot occupy the same space at the same time." Id. Meyer's defense attorneys concede that the Court of Criminal Appeals is the only appellate court with jurisdiction of his case. 12/23/2015 Appl.. at. 17. And nothing in the Oklahoma Supreme Court's December 14th order questions this Court's jurisdiction over Meyer's mandamus action.
'T15 The Oklahoma Supreme Court's actions threaten to create the very type of conflicts and confusion in the administration of eriminal justice which Oklahoma law forbids. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's actions foreshadow a world in which unsuceessful litigants before our Court will engage in forum-shopping by filing an appeal with the state Supreme Court seeking to bypass our rulings, See Lockett v. Evans, 2014 OK 33, 356 P.3d 58 (Oklahoma Supreme ~Court granted stays of execution for two death row inmates that we previously denied); Leftwich v. Court of Criminal Appeals, 2011 OK 80, 262 P.3d 750 (Oklahoma Supreme Court, after staying felony trial proceedings and holding oral argument, issued an order questioning the correctness of our previous rejection of a criminal defendant's interlocutory challenge to the legality of her prosecution). In the final analysis, the Oklahoma Supreme Court's actions amount to one of two things-either an attempt to revise the constitutional and statutory mandate placing exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all criminal cases in the Court of Criminal Appeals or a blatant" disregard of the Oklahoma Constitutional and statutory mandate for a bifurcated civil-criminal system of justice.
T6 The Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort in Oklahoma for all criminal cases,. | The Oklahoma Supreme Court has no authority whatsoever to question our decision in a case like Meyer's which no one disputes our jurisdiction to hear. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that "[plarties may not cireamvent the exelusive jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals by filing an original action in [the Supreme Court] when they disagree with [the Court of Criminal Appeals'] rulings." State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 1990 OK 3, ¶ 19, 786 P.2d 82, 87. Moreover, interference by the Oklahoma Su*44preme Court in a criminal case does not guarantee a favorable outcome for unsuccessful litigants, Such is the case here.
T7 For the reasons discussed in today's Order, Meyer's mandamus action remains time barred and we decline the Oklahoma Supreme Court majority's apparent invitation to reconsider our ruling. Again, as explained in the Court's Order, there are statutorily-based considerations unique to our criminal law jurisprudence warranting a departure from the Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 15(b) in civil cases, And the rules we prescribe for initiation of an appeal before this Court have the force of statute. 22 0.8.2011, § 1051(b). The present Application is nothing more than a request for rehearing. No provision in our Rules allows this Court to. take that action and we therefore cannot assume original jurisdiction over the present Application. Leftwich v. Alcorn, 2011 OK CR 27, 113-4, 262 P.3d 770, 771.