DUTTON v. CITY OF MIDWEST CITY
2015 OK 51
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Rodney Dutton, pro se, challenged three municipal-court convictions in Midwest City (assault/domestic battery; assault on an officer; public intoxication), claiming he was jailed and tried without counsel and was denied rights to notice, cross-examination, and appeal.
- Dutton filed post-conviction applications in Oklahoma County District Court; those applications were dismissed without prejudice (district court said they should be filed in municipal court). He also had related federal § 1983 litigation that was partly dismissed as premature or barred.
- He sought to invoke the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction by asking the Court to (a) adjudicate his municipal convictions void and (b) order the District Court to provide a direct appeal with appointed counsel.
- The City responded that Dutton’s claims are criminal in nature, that the Post‑Conviction Relief Act and the Court of Criminal Appeals provide the proper remedies/jurisdiction, and that the Supreme Court should not assume jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction only to decide whether it had power to hear the merits; it declined to assume original jurisdiction over the merits and denied all extraordinary relief without prejudice to Dutton pursuing available remedies in the appropriate courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court may assume original jurisdiction to review and overturn municipal criminal convictions | Dutton argued his federal constitutional rights (Sixth, Fourteenth) were violated and asked the Supreme Court to vacate convictions or order a direct appeal with counsel | City argued the matter is criminal; remedies exist under state law (appeal to district court; post‑conviction relief; Court of Criminal Appeals) and Supreme Court lacks appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases | Court held the claims are criminal in nature and declined to assume original jurisdiction to review merits or compel a direct appeal; dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether the Supreme Court’s superintending/supervisory power permits it to order an out‑of‑time or direct appeal in a municipal criminal case | Dutton requested exercise of superintending control to obtain a direct appeal and appointed counsel | City argued supervisory power does not override statutory appellate scheme and Court of Criminal Appeals’ exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters | Court held superintending control cannot be used to circumvent statutory appellate procedures; relief must be sought in municipal/District Court and Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Whether Dutton lacks an adequate remedy at law (justifying extraordinary relief) | Dutton asserted denial of counsel and appeals left him without an adequate remedy | City and record: Post‑Conviction Relief Act and municipal/District Court procedures provide statutory remedies; federal remedies also pursued | Court held Dutton failed to show lack of adequate remedies; statutory remedies are available and adequate in form and opportunity |
| Whether appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing were warranted in this original proceeding | Dutton moved for appointed counsel, hearing, and oral argument | City opposed; Court found the proceeding here was only a jurisdictional question and not a merits forum | Court denied appointment of counsel, oral argument, and evidentiary hearing because it declined to assume jurisdiction on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1972) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel where imprisonment may be imposed)
- In re Opinion of the Judges, 105 P. 325 (Okla. 1909) (discussing appellate allocation after creation of Court of Criminal Appeals)
- City of Elk City v. Taylor, 157 P.3d 1152 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (municipal ordinance prosecutions are criminal matters subject to criminal appellate review)
- Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals, 595 P.2d 416 (Okla. 1978) (Supreme Court will not assume jurisdiction over matters normally reviewed by Court of Criminal Appeals)
- State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 786 P.2d 82 (Okla. 1990) (matters that alter criminal judgment or sentence lie within Court of Criminal Appeals’ exclusive jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Coats v. Hunter, 580 P.2d 158 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978) (Post‑Conviction Relief Act supplants common‑law writs for collateral attacks)