Court Opinion

ID: 9792763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:36:05.164204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:03.225812
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING

JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge:
Appellant, the State, pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 1053.1, appealed a ruling of District Judge William Bliss, District Court of Muskogee County, who determined 47 O.S.Supp.1988, § 1503(C)(1) to be unconstitutionally vague and invalid. This Court issued its opinion reversing the tidal court and remanding the case for trial. See State v. Johnson, 63 OBJ, No. 41 (November 7,1992). William Boyd Johnson and Steven David Smith, Appellees, filed their Petition herein, urging that this Court’s remand for trial is inappropriate under the law and the prior rulings of this Court. This Court granted the Petition for Rehearing and directed the State to respond.
Appellees rely on this Court’s decision in State v. Mazurek, 546 P.2d 1327 (Okl.Cr.1976), wherein we considered the effect of a trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer to the information and declaring unconstitutional the provisions of 59 O.S.Supp.1974, § 858-101, et seq. as applied to the defendant. At the outset of that opinion, this Court noted that the appeal could not be brought under 22 O.S.Supp.1975, § 1053.1, for the reason that that section became effective October 1, 1975, after the order which was entered on June 9, 1975. Thus, the effect of the order was governed by the provisions of 22 O.S. 1971, § 508, which provided:
If the demurrer is sustained, the judgment is final upon the indictment or information demurred to, and is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, unless the court, being of opinion that the objection on which the demurrer is sustained may be avoided in a new indictment or information, direct the case to be resubmitted to the same of another grand jury, or that a new information be filed.
We concluded that “this appeal on a reserved question of law can only serve as a guideline for all future cases prosecuted under the provisions of 59 O.S.Supp.1974, § 858-101, et seq., and that the order of the court in sustaining the demurer bars further prosecution of the defendant under the same information or any information arising out of his operation of Rentex of Tulsa on the 6th day of April, 1975.” We based this conclusion on the fact that at that time, the only means for the State to pursue an appeal on the question of constitutionality was pursuant to 22 O.S. 1971, § 1053(3), “Upon a question reserved by the state or a municipality.”.
However, our legislature enacted 22 O.S.Supp.1975, § 1053.1 to provide for an automatic appeal of judgments holding statutes unconstitutional in criminal cases. We believe it did so in order to avoid the result we had to reach in Mazurek It is absurd to think that the legislature intended to reward a defendant because he was the first to have a trial court erroneously rule a statute unconstitutional. Such a ruling is not tantamount to one sustaining a demurrer to an indictment or information where the defects as enumerated in 22 O.S.1991, § 504, appear upon the face of the indictment or information or where there is insufficiency of evidence. The legislature is presumed not to do a vain act.
Therefore, we hold that the effect of an appeal under 22 O.S. 1053.1, does not bar further prosecution, except in cases such as State v. Madden, 562 P.2d 1177 (Okl.Cr.1977), where there was a trial on the merits *1143before the judge who subsequently ruled a statute unconstitutional. In so holding, we expressly overrule State v. Tinkler, 815 P.2d 190 (Okl.Cr.1991) and any other case to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.
Accordingly, as per our original opinion herein, this case is REMANDED for trial. The Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
LUMPKIN, P.J., and CHAPEL, J., concur.
LANE, J., not participating.