Court Opinion

ID: 9536833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:07:42.660353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:23.817327
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge,
concurring in result.
I agree with the court when it finds that a person 16 to 18 years of age charged with an offense subject to reverse certification may be found guilty of a lesser included offense. I also agree that the appellant in this case may be punished by incarceration in the county jail. However, I do not believe that the reasoning of the majority as to the sen-fence is appropriate in this matter due to the special circumstances of this ease.
T disagree with the court in its finding that the legislature intended to include negligent homicide in the traffic exception of Section 1112(A) of the Title 10 when it amended 47 O.S.1981 § 11-903 in 1985. I believe that if that were their intent they would have amended Section 1112(A). I am convinced that by the amendment they authorized the prosecution of a person between the ages of 16 and 18 for the offense of negligent homicide outside of the provisions of the juvenile code. I reach this conclusion because a literal reading of the statute does not allow for reverse certification to the juvenile division of the trial court under provisions of 10 O.S. 1991, § 1104.2 and does not require certification as an adult under 10 O.S. § 1112. At the time of the amendment the legislature knew what the punishment for the offense was and intended that it would apply to a 16 to 18 year old being convicted for the crime. Therefore, I would affirm the sentence for a reason different from the majority.
I realize that by taking this position I am leaving open the question of whether or not a person 16 to 18 years old may be incarcerated after being convicted of any other lesser included non index crime. I think that issue should be determined when the proper fact situation is presented. I am authorized to say Judge JOHNSON and Judge STRUB-HAR join in this special vote.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

Karrie Sue Mason was seventeen years old when she was tried as an adult for the offense of first degree manslaughter (21 O.S. 1991, § 711.1) in the District Court of Ste*730phens County in Case No. CRF-91-55. The jury convicted her of the lesser included offense of Negligent Homicide (47 O.S.Supp. 1988, § 11-903). In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable George W. Lindley, District Judge, sentenced Mason to serve one year in the county jail and imposed a $1000.00 fine.
By its January 21, 1994 published opinion, this court affirmed Mason’s conviction on the lesser included offense of negligent homicide and her sentence. Mason is now before the court on a Petition for Rehearing, which is governed by Rule 3.14, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp.1993, Ch.18, App. According to Rule 3.14, a Petition for Rehearing shall not be filed as a matter of course, but only for two reasons:
(1) That some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or
(2) That the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument.
Mason raises essentially two propositions in her Petition for Rehearing. Both fail to meet the criteria set forth in Rule 3.14. Accordingly, these propositions will not be addressed.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the Petition for Rehearing filed herein be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 24th day of February, 1994.