Court Opinion

ID: 9594108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:27:16.957136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:02.317255
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge, specially
concurring.
I join in the Court’s well-reasoned opinion, but write separately to express concerns not specifically addressed.
I agree the assessments discussed here are not unconstitutional because they do not violate Okla. Const, art IV, § 1, demanding a separation of powers. However, I believe dicta by Judge Brett in Ex parte Coffelt, 93 Okl.Cr. 343, 228 P.2d 199, 202-03 (1951) is well taken and should not be ignored. As we stated in Ballard v. State, 868 P.2d 738 (Okl. Cr.1994), we do not preclude the possibility that at some point, the imposition to the Judicial branch by the Legislature of additional responsibilities in the form of collecting assessments may become so burdensome it will interfere with the court’s ability to perform its central functions. This Court should be ever vigilant to guard against creeping encroachment upon the dividing line between the three branches of government, to ensure one branch does not do indirectly what it is precluded from doing directly.
I also agree with the Court’s determination the assessments do not violate the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Legislature has endeavored to give courts various sentencing options as alternatives to incarceration. See, e.g., 22 O.S. 1991, §§ 982a (judicial review of sentencing or probation revocation), 991a (county community service), 991a-2 (night or weekend incarceration), 991a-4 (community service sentencing program). To hold as Appellee would have us hold could limit a court’s consideration of alternate methods to deal with nonviolent offenders. And needless to say, the concept of involuntary servitude was never intended to apply to methodologies used to deal with those sentenced pursuant to valid punishment provisions.
I also agree Brown v. State, 314 P.2d 362 (Okl.Cr.1957) and Gaines v. State, 568 P.2d 1290 (Okl.Cr.1977) have no application to the case at hand.