State Ex Rel. Coats v. Rakestraw

CORNISH, Presiding Judge,

dissenting;

In an unusual procedure, a panel of three District Judges, in a 2 to 1 decision, issued a twelve page opinion striking down the 1979 reverse certification statute. A careful study of the present statute and the briefs filed herein has not persuaded me to depart from my earlier special concurring opinion dealing with this type of age/offense classification. See State ex rel. Coats v. Johnson, Okl.Cr., 597 P.2d 328 (1979). I believe the present statute continues to create an impermissible presumption having no rational connection to the juvenile’s competency to stand trial as an adult. See Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 , 63 S.Ct. 1241 , 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943).

Of equally grave concern to me is that portion of 10 O.S.Supp.1979, § 1104.2 C, which sets forth guidelines for the court to consider in ruling on the juvenile’s motion to be remanded to the children’s court. 1 I *262 have less concern over the enumerated guidelines than with the glaring omissions of that part of the statute. These guidelines omit considerations of (1) sophistication and maturity; (2) the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile by the use of procedures and facilities currently available to the juvenile court; and (3) whether the offense occurred while the juvenile was escaping or in an escape status. Failure of the statute in allowing the trial court to consider these critically important factors is insufficient to provide an adequate hearing.

I am particularly disturbed that the trial court, after hearing the motion to certify as a child, is required only to conclude that it has considered each of the guidelines in reaching its decision. This fails to demonstrate that a full investigation has taken place, that the motion has received the careful and thorough consideration of the trial judge, and that the order contains findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth “with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.” See Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966). How can this Court discharge its appellate review responsibility when the statute only requires that the trial judge make such a general finding?

Furthermore, apprehension as to the constitutionality of the reverse certification statute has been demonstrated statewide since the adoption of the first such statute on October 1, 1978. Numerous prosecutors and judges have continued to proceed under the old certification law to avoid subsequent reversals and retrials of hundreds of cases in the future. Potentially, we have the same problem with the reverse certification statute that we had in Edwards v. State, Okl.Cr., 591 P.2d 313 (1979). 2

Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

. Title 10 O.S.Supp.1979, § 1104.2 C, sets forth the following guidelines to consider in ruling on the motion for certification as a child:

“1. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner;

“2. Whether the offense was against persons or property, greater weight being given for retaining the accused person within the adult criminal system for offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted;

*262 “3. The record and past history of the accused person, including previous contacts with law enforcement agencies and juvenile or criminal courts, prior periods of probation and commitments to juvenile institutions; and

“4. The prospects for adequate protection of the public if the accused person is processed through the juvenile system.”

. Edwards v. State, Okl.Cr., 591 P.2d 313 (1979), held that retrospective relief must be granted to those male persons who were prosecuted as adults without benefit of a certification hearing when they were between sixteen and eighteen years of age. Hundreds of post-conviction proceedings have been filed by many who claimed to have been victims of an unconstitutional conviction.