|
|
|
| Youthful Offender |
|
J.F.M. v. State,
No. J-2005-549 (Okl.Cr., September 2, 2005) (Unpublished): Youthful Offender winner!!! JFM was only fourteen-years-old when he was charged with Murder I in Comanche County. The trial court ordered him tried as an adult and denied his motion for certification as either a juvenile or Youthful Offender. The legal error in this case, couched under a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, is that trial counsel did not present any evidence at the certification hearing, choosing instead to merely cross-examine the State's witnesses. The Court's opinion here is particularly strong on this issue, stating forcefully that the burden is on the accused to show that he is amenable to treatment as a YO or juvenile; and that at the new certification hearing he is to be provided effective counsel to "include expert witnesses to assist in meeting his burden of proof." Good opinion for OIDS attorneys to have when requesting experts in these cases; and also for private pay cases when the client cannot afford an expert (request funds from the trial court and show the judge this opinion).
|
|
|
United States v. David A. (a juvenile),
No. 04-2284 (10th Cir., February 3, 2006) (Published): This is a case involving the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act. I have been preparing this newsletter for almost a year now and this is only the second time I have noticed an opinion out of the Circuit dealing with federal juvenile law. In this case, David A. was accused of some heavy drug trafficking and the Government wanted to try him as an adult. The Circuit, in a very lengthy and detailed opinion, sets forth the legal landscape in this area and concludes ultimately that David A. will be tried as an adult.
|
|
|
E.A.L.S. v. State,
No. J-2008-36 (Okl.Cr., February 7, 2008) (unpublished): Juvenile/Youthful Offender: In this juvenile case, the juvenile appealed an order of the district court certifying him to stand trial as an adult on a charge of First Degree Manslaughter. However, the district court vacated the juvenile's indigent status upon learning that he was admitted to bail in the amount of $10,000.00. The juvenile contends that he is indigent and simply had the assistance of his brother to bail him out. The district court was under the impression that the financial status of the parents was relevant since the accused was a juvenile and the parents were responsible for him. The Court disagreed and reversed with instructions for the trial court to appoint counsel. The test for indigence is personal to the Defendant.
|
|
Jeffrey Leroy Carpenter v. State
No. RE-2006-1322 (Okl.Cr., March 18, 2008) (unpublished): Youthful Offender: Carpenter plead guilty to Rape in Ottawa County before the Hon. Robert E. Reavis, II, and was sentenced to 7 years with all but the first three suspended. The State moved to revoke, alleging that Carpenter failed to register, failed to pay probation fees, and failed to pay fines and costs. Revoked in full. Here is the kicker: Carpenter was charged originally, and found to be for the duration of the case, a Youthful Offender. Thus, the original sentence as an adult, which apparently was imposed by the trial court sua sponte and without objection (???) was illegal and plain error.
|
|
|
M.A.W. v. State,
2008 OK CR 16 (May 20, 2008): Youthful Offender: Special Judge D. Fred Doak, Oklahoma County, denied the motions of M.A.W. to be treated as either a Youthful Offender or a Juvenile when he was charged with Murder in the First Degree when he was 17-years-old. In this appeal, M.A.W. challenged certain provisions of Title 10, but to no avail. The Court held: 1) House Bill 2195, enacted in 2007, is constitutional in the face of an attack that it violated the single-subject and "anti-logrolling" provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution; 2) the statute eliminating Youthful Offender eligibility for 17, 16, and 15-year-olds charged with Murder in the First Degree was not impliedly repealed; and 3) the statute limiting Youthful Offender eligibility for persons charged with Murder in the First Degree to 13 and 14-year-olds is not unconstitutionally overbroad.
|
|
|
|
