Leftwich v. Court of Criminal Appeals

2011 OK 80, 262 P.3d 750, 2011 Okla. LEXIS 83, 2011 WL 4375305

• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Decided: September 19, 2011
• Docket: 109,609
• Status: Published

Opinions

ORDER

T1 Petitioner seeks from this Court an extraordinary writ of prohibition, or in the alternative an extraordinary writ of mandamus, for the purpose of controlling the discretion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in its interpretation of Article 5 § 22 of the Oklahoma Constitution in an order of that court filed June 9, 2011, in Leftwich v. Alcorn, PR-2011-819.

12 The Supreme Court heard oral argument from the Petitioner, Real Party in Interest, and Amicus Curiae. Counsel for Petitioner, counsel for the Real Party in Interest, and counsel for Amicus Curiae all agreed during oral argument that certain issues raised herein were not raised, or were not adequately raised, before the Court of Criminal Appeals in PR-2011-319, and that the interpretation of Art. 5, $ 22 by the Court of Criminal Appeals was both truncated and in some respects erroneous. All counsel agreed that a portion of the order issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals, specifically; [tlhe Speech and Debate Clause in the Oklahoma Constitution includes an express exception for felonies. Okla. Const. Art. V, § 22, 1 should not be enforced as the parties perceive that portion of the order to be a mistake of law in the underlying criminal proceeding in the District Court of Oklahoma County.

1 3 Upon consideration of the agreement of counsel for the parties during oral argument and this Court's review of the order of the Court of Criminal Appeals, in PR-2011-319, we decline to assume original jurisdiction in order to allow the parties the opportunity to seek the appropriate relief in the Court of Criminal Appeals. This Court thus need not address the scope of Article 5, § 22 of the Oklahoma Constitution or any issues of jurisdiction relating to the effect of the Court of Criminal Appeals order in PR-2011-319 or this Court's supervisory writ jurisdiction over the Court of Criminal Appeals.

1 4 We decline to assume original jurisdiction. Okla, Const. Art. 7 § 4. On July 28, 2011, this Court issued a stay of the trial court proceedings in CF-2010-8067, District Court of Oklahoma County. The stay issued by our order of July 28th is hereby dissolved.

T5 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 19TH DAY SEPTEMBER 2011.

T6 CONCUR: TAYLOR, C.J., COLBERT, V.C.J., KAUGER, EDMONDSON, COMBS, JJ. T7 CONCURRING IN PART; DISSENTING IN PART: WINCHESTER

(It is emphatically the province and duty of the Court of Criminal Appeals to say what the law is in a criminal matter. I would dismiss the Petitioner's application to assume original jurisdiction for lack of jurisdiction to review an order by the Court of Criminal Appeals in an undisputed criminal matter over which that court had exelusive jurisdiction. Art. 7, § 4, Okla. Const.; In the Matter of M.B., 2006 OK. 68, I 8, 145 P.3d 1040, 1044.), J

T8 DISSENT: WATT (by separate writing), REIF (by separate writing), JJ. T9 DISQUALIFIED: GURICH, J.

1 . The full text of the Speech and Debate Clause provides 'Senators and Representatives shall, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of the Legislature, and in going to and returning from the same, and, for any speech or debate in either House, shall not be questioned in any other place. Okla. Const. Art. V, § 22.'