STATE ex rel. PRUITT v. STEIDLEY

OSCN Found Document:STATE ex rel. PRUITT v. STEIDLEY

OSCN navigation

Home

Courts

Court Dockets

Legal Research

Calendar

Help

Previous Case

Top Of Index

This Point in Index

Citationize

Next Case

Print Only

STATE ex rel. PRUITT v. STEIDLEY

2015 OK CR 6

349 P.3d 554

Case Number: PR-2014-1050

Decided: 04/22/2015

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, EX REL, E. SCOTT PRUITT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE J. DWAYNE STEIDLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Respondent.

Consol. with PR-2014-1073

Cite as: 2015 OK CR 6 , 349 P.3d 554

ORDER GRANTING EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

AND

REMANDING MATTERS TO DISTRICT COURT

¶1 The Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, E. Scott Pruitt, has filed

two applications for extraordinary writs in this Court, PR 2014-1050 and PR

2014-1073. Both applications seek the same relief from orders issued by the

Honorable J. Dwayne Steidley, District Judge, in Rogers County District Court

Case No. CF-2013-535, State of Oklahoma v. Cathryn Coleen Storey (PR

2014-1050) and Case No. CF-2014-5, State of Oklahoma v. Ellen Pittser (PR

2014-1073). The two cases are herewith consolidated for purposes of addressing

the issue of whether the Attorney General can appear in the above referenced

District Court cases and assume control of the prosecutions pursuant to its

authority under Section 18(b)(A)(3) of Title 74.

Procedural History of PR 2014-1050

¶2 On December 12, 2014, the Petitioner, by and through Assistant Attorney

General Megan Tilly, filed an emergency application for a stay of the District

Judge's order denying the Attorney General the authority to take and assume

control of the prosecution in Case No. CF-2013-535 pursuant to 74 O.S.2011, § 18b(A)(3), a motion

for a waiver of the ten-day Rule and a combined application to assume original

jurisdiction and petition for a writ of prohibition. The State seeks a writ

prohibiting Judge Steidley from enforcing his order prohibiting the Oklahoma

Attorney General's Office from taking and assuming control of the prosecution in

Case No. CF-2013-535, pursuant to its authority under Section 18(b)(A)(3) and/or

its common law authority.

¶3 Petitioner filed an entry of appearance in the District Court on behalf of

the State of Oklahoma in Case No. CF-2013-535, citing Section 18(b)(A)(3) of

Title 74, on November 24, 2014, stating that the Attorney General deemed it

advisable and in the best interest of the State of Oklahoma to enter in this

matter and take and assume control of the prosecution of the case. Counsel for

Defendant Storey, Josh D. Lee, filed an objection on December 2, 2014. In an

order filed December 9, 2014, Judge Steidley found that the appearance of the

Attorney General in this case is appropriate, but he also found that Case No.

CF-2013-535 is not a case provided for in Section 18b(A)(3) in which the

Attorney General could take and assume control of the existing prosecution.

Judge Steidley based his decision on his finding that the statutory authority

for the Attorney General to assume control of a case is restricted to when the

Governor or the Legislature requests the appearance of the Attorney General. He

set the matter for a Status Conference on December 16, 2014, and on December 11,

2014, he denied the State's motion to stay execution of his order.

¶4 In an Order issued by this Court on December 15, 2014, the State's

emergency application for a stay was granted and further proceedings were stayed

in Case No. CF-2013-535 until further order of this Court. The Respondent, or

his designated representative, and the District Attorney for Rogers County, were

each directed to file a response to Petitioner's application to this Court. On

December 17, 2014, Judge Steidley filed a response to the Attorney General's

application for an emergency stay of proceedings.

¶5 Josh D. Lee, attorney for the defendant in Case No. CF-2013-535, without

application for leave to file a response and without setting forth that he was

the designated representative of Respondent, filed a response on January 14,

2015.

¶6 On January 15, 2015, the newly elected District Attorney for Rogers

County, Matthew J. Ballard, filed a motion to file his response out of time and

in the response argued that a change of circumstances rendered the Attorney

General's application to this Court moot and that the basis for intervention no

longer existed. In the alternative, the District Attorney requested additional

time to properly address the issues set forth in the Attorney General's

application. In an Order issued January 28, 2015, the District Attorney's motion

to file the response out of time was granted and the District Attorney was

granted additional time to file a proper response. The District Attorney's

request that this Court render the Attorney General's petition moot was

denied.

¶7 On January 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to file a reply brief.

Petitioner's motion is herewith GRANTED . The Clerk of this Court is

directed to file the Attorney General's Reply Brief, which is attached to the

motion.

¶8 Judge Steidley filed an application for leave to respond out of time on

February 13, 2015. The Proposed Response was also filed on February 13, 2015.

Judge Steidley sets forth that he originally decided to allow the Defendant's

Response filed on January 14, 2015, to stand as his response, but subsequently

decided that he should also file a response. Judge Steidley's request to file a

response out of time is GRANTED . Construing Judge Steidley's application

as an endorsement of the Defendant's Response, as his designated representative,

we will also allow the Defendant's Response to be considered. District Attorney

Ballard's Response was filed in this Court on March 2, 2015.

Procedural History of PR 2014-1073

¶9 On December 22, 2014, the Attorney General, by and through Assistant

Attorney General Emily N. Harrelson, filed an application for extraordinary

relief from a second order issued by Judge Steidley denying the Attorney General

the authority to take and assume control of the prosecution in Case No.

CF-2014-5 pursuant to 74 O.S. 2011 ,

§ 18b(A)(3). In this case, the State also seeks a writ prohibiting Judge

Steidley from enforcing his order prohibiting the Attorney General from taking

and assuming control of the prosecution pursuant to his authority under Section

18(b)(A)(3). In a Court Minute issued December 11, 2014, Judge Steidley

sustained the objection to the Attorney General's prosecution of the case

relying upon the authority set out in his response filed in PR-2014-1050.

¶10 In an Order issued January 6, 2015, this Court stayed all proceedings in

Case No. CF-2014-5 and directed a response from Respondent and from the District

Attorney for Rogers County. On January 22, 2015, the attorney for Defendant

Pittser, Jack E. Gordon, Jr., without leave and without setting forth that he

was the designated representative of Respondent, filed a response to the

Attorney General's application. Judge Steidley filed an application for leave to

respond out of time in Case No. CF-2014-5 on February 13, 2015. The Proposed

Response was also filed on February 13, 2015. Judge Steidley sets forth that he

originally decided to allow the Defendant's Response to stand as his response

but subsequently decided that he should also file a response. Judge Steidley's

request to file a response out of time is GRANTED . Construing Judge

Steidley's application as an endorsement of the Defendant's Response, as his

designated representative, we will also allow the Defendant's Response in Case

No. CF-2014-5 to be considered. District Attorney Ballard's Response was filed

in this Court on March 2, 2015.

Decision

¶11 The District Attorney argues in his response that the authority of the

Attorney General and the District Attorney to appear on behalf of the State is

concurrent and that where each public entity has authority, that the Attorney

General's authority is not superior to that of the District Attorney. The

District Attorney states that there is no inherent conflict between Section 18b

of Title 74 and Section 215.4 of Title 19. The District Attorney states that he

is in agreement with the Attorney General's intervention as being necessary in

these cases, but argues that the Attorney General should not be able to simply

remove the District Attorney from a case, and that he believes the trial judge

should be allowed to determine the precise parameters of representation in a

particular case. Judge Steidley set forth in his December 9, 2014 order that he

believes that the Legislature has not authorized the Attorney General to assume

control of litigation in any instance in which he appears. Judge Steidley, along

with the attorneys for Defendant Storey and Defendant Pittser, all argue that

the Attorney General can only take and assume control of the prosecution at the

request of the Governor, the Legislature, or either branch thereof. The

responding parties cite to no authority interpreting the statutory language of

Section 18b(A)(3) of Title 74 subsequent to the 1995 statutory amendment.

¶12 The rules of statutory interpretation are well settled. As set forth in

State v. Stice , 2012 OK CR

14, ¶ 11 , 288 P.3d 247 ,

250:

Statutes are to be construed to determine the intent of the Legislature,

reconciling provisions, rendering them consistent and giving intelligent

effect to each. Lozoya v. State , 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 17 , 932 P.2d 22, 28 ; State v.

Ramsey , 1993 OK CR 54, ¶

7 , 868 P.2d 709, 711 . It is

also well established that statutes are to be construed according to the

plain and ordinary meaning of their language. Wallace v. State , 1997 OK CR 18, ¶ 4 , 935 P.2d 366, 369-370 ; Virgin

v. State , 1990 OK CR 27,

¶ 7 , 792 P.2d 1186, 1188 . We

also recognize that the fundamental principle of statutory construction is

to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature as

expressed in the statute. Wallace v. State, 1996 OK CR 8, ¶ 4 , 910 P.2d 1084, 1086 ; Thomas

v. State , 1965 OK CR 70,

¶ 4 , 404 P.2d 71, 73 .

However, it is not our place to interpret a statute to address a matter the

Legislature chose not to address, even if we think that interpretation might

produce a reasonable result. State v. Young , 1999 OK CR 14, ¶ 27 , 989 P.2d 949, 955 . "[T]o

ascertain the intention of the Legislature in the enactment of [a] statute,

we may look to each part of the statute, to other statutes upon the same or

relative subjects, to the evils and mischiefs to be remedied, and to the

natural or absurd consequences of any particular interpretation." Lozoya

v. State , 1996 OK CR 55,

¶ 20 , 932 P.2d 22, 28

(quotations and citation omitted). Each part of the various statutes must be

given intelligent effect. This Court will not presume the Legislature to

have done a vain thing. We are mindful that elementary rules of statutory

interpretation require us to avoid any statutory construction which would

render any part of a statute superfluous or useless. See, Vilandre v.

State , 2005 OK CR 9, ¶

5 , 113 P.3d 893, 896 ;

Byrd v. Caswell , 2001 OK

CR 29, ¶ 6 , 34 P.3d 647,

648-649 . State v. Doak , 2007 OK CR 3, ¶ 17 , 154 P.3d 84, 87 . Where possible

the statutory amendments should be reconciled or construed together.

Id .

¶13 Oklahoma law provides a statutory rule for interpreting conflicting

statutes where the language of the statutes cannot be reconciled. The latter

statute controls. 75 O.S.2011, §

22 ("If the provisions of any code, title, chapter or article conflict with

or contravene the provisions of any former code, title, chapter or article, the

provisions of the latter code, title, chapter or article must prevail as to all

matter and questions arising thereunder out of the same subject matter.")

¶14 Reviewing the plain language of Section 18b(A)(3) of Title 74, amended in

1995, setting forth duties of the Attorney General, and Section 215.4 of Title

19, setting forth the duties of District Attorneys, we find that the two

statutes are not conflicting. We also find that the latter provisions of Section

18b(A)(3) control.

¶15 Title 74 O.S.2011, §

18b(A), sets forth the duties of the Attorney General as the chief law

officer of the State. Section 18b(A)(3) directs:

3. To initiate or appear in any action in which the interests of the

state or the people of the state are at issue, or to appear at the request

of the Governor, the Legislature, or either branch thereof, and prosecute

and defend in any court or before any commission, board or officers any

cause or proceeding, civil or criminal, in which the state may be a party or

interested; and when so appearing in any such cause or proceeding, the

Attorney General may, if the Attorney General deems it advisable and to the

best interest of the state, take and assume control of the prosecution or

defense of the state's interest therein;

Section 18b(A)(3) was amended by the Legislature in 1995. Prior to the 1995

amendment, the statute read:

3. To appear at the request of the Governor, the Legislature, or either

branch thereof, and prosecute and defend in any court or before any

commission, board or officers any cause or proceeding, civil or criminal, in

which the state may be a party or interested; and when so appearing in any

such cause or proceeding, he may, if he deems it advisable and to the best

interest of the state, take and assume control of the prosecution or defense

of the state's interest therein.

¶16 As applied to the facts of these two cases, the plain language of this

amended statute authorizes the chief law officer of the State, the Attorney

General, to initiate or appear in any action in which the interests of the State

or the people of the State are at issue. When so appearing, and the Attorney

General deems it advisable and to the best interest of the State, the Attorney

General may take and assume control of the prosecution or defense of the State's

interest. This does not prevent the District Attorney from appearing and

prosecuting criminal actions as directed in Section 215.4 of Title 19, but when

the Attorney General enters the case pursuant to Section 18b(A)(3) of Title 74,

any role by the District Attorney would be subservient to the Attorney

General.

¶17 For a writ of prohibition, Petitioner must establish: (1) a court,

officer or person has or is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power;

(2) the exercise of said power is unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of

said power will result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy.

Rule 10.6(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22,

Ch.18, App. (2015). As Judge Steidley's orders prohibiting the Attorney General

from taking and assuming control of the prosecution in these cases, pursuant to

its authority under 74 O.S.2011, §

18(b)(A)(3), is unauthorized

by law, the Attorney General's applications for extraordinary relief are

GRANTED . The Stays imposed in Case No. CF-2013-535 by this Court on

December 15, 2014, and in Case No. CF-2014-5 on January 6, 2015, are hereby

LIFTED . The matters are REMANDED to the District Court for further

proceedings consistent with this Order.

¶18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

¶19 WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 22nd day of

April, 2015.

/s/CLANCY SMITH, Presiding Judge

/s/GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge

/s/ARLENE JOHNSON, Judge

/s/DAVID B. LEWIS, Judge

ATTEST:

/s/Michael S. Richie

Clerk

Citationizer © Summary of Documents Citing This Document

Cite

Name

Level

None Found.

Citationizer: Table of Authority

Cite

Name

Level

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Cases

Cite Name Level

1990 OK CR 27 , 792 P.2d 1186 , VIRGIN v. STATE Discussed

1993 OK CR 54 , 868 P.2d 709 , STATE v. RAMSEY Discussed

1996 OK CR 8 , 910 P.2d 1084 , WALLACE v. STATE Discussed

1996 OK CR 55 , 932 P.2d 22 , Benjamin Lozoya v. State Discussed at Length

2001 OK CR 29 , 34 P.3d 647 , 72 OBJ 3083, BYRD v. CASWELL Discussed

2005 OK CR 9 , 113 P.3d 893 , VILANDRE v. STATE Discussed

2007 OK CR 3 , 154 P.3d 84 , STATE v. DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY Discussed

2012 OK CR 14 , 288 P.3d 247 , STATE v. STICE Discussed

1965 OK CR 70 , 404 P.2d 71 , THOMAS v. STATE Discussed

1997 OK CR 18 , 935 P.2d 366 , Wallace v. State Discussed

1999 OK CR 14 , 989 P.2d 949 , 70 OBJ 1076, State v. Young Discussed

Title 74. State Government

Cite Name Level

74 O.S. 18b, Duties of Attorney General - Counsel of Corporation Commission as Representative on Appeal From Commission Discussed at Length

Title 75. Statutes and Reports

Cite Name Level

75 O.S. 22 , Conflicting Provisions Cited