DUTTON v. CITY OF MIDWEST CITY

2015 OK 51

Summary: Dutton sought an extraordinary writ in the Oklahoma Supreme Court and challenged his convictions in three criminal proceedings in the municipal court for The City of Midwest City. He also requested an alternative remedy that would compel the District Court to provide him with a new appeal of his convictions in the District Court.

Legal Issues: The Court looked only to whether it had jurisdiction over this matter and found that it did not. Lacking jurisdiction, the matter was dismissed.

Dutton is seeking relief from what is clearly a criminal case. As explained before, Oklahoma has two courts of ultimate jurisdiction. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, which handles questions all matters of law and equity other than criminal matters. Criminal matters are handled exclusively by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

Questions of which court should hear an issue are somewhat rare. The Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that there are four primary distinctions between the jurisdictions of the two courts: 1) Whether the otherwise civil action (such as habeas corpus) has been converted into a criminal action by legislative action (habeas corpus as related to criminal actions are heard by the Court of Criminal Appeals, other habeas corpus matters are before the Oklahoma Supreme Court); 2) Whether the appeal involves an institutional issue of the trial court which does not relate to the propriety or enforcement of a criminal judgment (e.g. compensation of attorneys on a criminal matter); 3) Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals has exceeded its appellate jurisdiction; and, 4) Whether the otherwise criminal action has been endowed with a civil action component by the legislature.

The Court went on to note that while it does have superintending jurisdiction over the state district courts, such jurisdiction is held at an institutional level and not on the case level. Thus, the Court may exercise its superintending jurisdiction to establish procedures to be followed by the trial courts, it does not exercise this jurisdiction on the individual case level.

Discussion: Dutton also requested that he be appointed legal counsel in this matter. The Court noted that some civil actions do rise to the level where appointed legal counsel is appropriate (an example might be when dealing with Department of Human Services and a deprived child designation), but that this case did not meet that designation.