DUTTON v. CITY OF MIDWEST CITY
353 P.3d 532
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Rodney Dutton, pro se, challenges municipal convictions (assault, public intoxication, domestic assault/battery) from Midwest City municipal court and seeks relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- Dutton alleges denial of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights: no appointed counsel for imprisonment, no meaningful notice, inability to cross‑examine witnesses, and lack of an appeal or adequate post‑conviction remedy. He requests vacatur of convictions or an order directing a District Court direct appeal with appointed counsel.
- He filed post‑conviction applications in Oklahoma County District Court that were dismissed (without prejudice) for procedural reasons; attempts at review in the Court of Criminal Appeals were dismissed for procedural deficiencies in the record.
- Midwest City notes parallel federal § 1983 litigation, and the federal court dismissed parts of that suit under Heck and related doctrine; some federal appeals were deemed premature. The City contends state post‑conviction remedies are available.
- The Supreme Court limited its review to the question of jurisdiction: whether it may assume original supervisory jurisdiction to adjudicate Dutton’s criminal‑conviction challenges or to compel a direct appeal in District Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OK Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to review merits of challenge to municipal criminal convictions | Dutton: Court may assume original jurisdiction and void convictions or order a new direct appeal with appointed counsel | City: Claims are criminal in nature and an adequate remedy exists under state post‑conviction procedures and Court of Criminal Appeals jurisdiction | Court: No—these are criminal matters; Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate merits; dismiss without prejudice to pursue proper remedies |
| Whether Supreme Court can compel District Court to provide a direct appeal/out‑of‑time appeal with appointed counsel | Dutton: Requests writ directing District Court to permit an appeal and appoint counsel | City: Statutory appellate route exists (municipal → District Court → Court of Criminal Appeals); Supreme Court should not usurp that route | Court: No—the Supreme Court will not direct the District Court to provide such an appeal; remedy lies in municipal/District Court and Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Whether Dutton lacks an adequate remedy at law such that extraordinary relief in Supreme Court is warranted | Dutton: Procedural dismissals and record defects left him without effective remedy | City: Post‑conviction procedure and municipal/District Court processes are available and adequate | Court: Remedies are adequate in theory (Post‑Conviction Relief Act, municipal/District Court); failure to follow those procedures does not create Supreme Court jurisdiction |
| Whether appointment of counsel/oral argument/evidentiary hearing in this original jurisdiction matter is warranted | Dutton: Requests appointed counsel and evidentiary hearing to adjudicate his constitutional claims | City: Not addressed in detail; argues matter is in wrong forum | Court: Denied—because Court declined jurisdiction on merits, appointed counsel and evidentiary hearing would not assist here |
Key Cases Cited
- Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) (Sixth Amendment requires appointment of counsel where imprisonment is imposed)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (civil § 1983 claim attacking conviction may be barred unless conviction reversed or invalidated)
- State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 786 P.2d 82 (Okla. 1990) (matters altering punishment or criminal judgment fall within Court of Criminal Appeals' exclusive jurisdiction)
- State v. Lynch, 796 P.2d 1150 (Okla. 1990) (Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction to remedy institutional attorney‑compensation deficiencies distinct from individual criminal adjudication)
- Jackson v. City of Oklahoma City, 678 P.2d 725 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984) (application of Argersinger in municipal court contexts)
- Paxton v. State, 903 P.2d 325 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (Post‑Conviction Relief Act supplants common‑law writs and governs collateral challenges)