DUTTON v. CITY OF MIDWEST CITY
2015 OK 51
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Rodney Dutton was convicted in Midwest City municipal court on three misdemeanor charges and served a 30-day jail sentence; he alleges denial of counsel and other constitutional errors at trial.
- After release, Dutton filed three post-conviction applications in Oklahoma County District Court; those were dismissed (in at least two matters) without prejudice, and his petitions to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals were dismissed for procedural defects in the record.
- Dutton filed a pro se application in the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking (1) assumption of original jurisdiction to declare his municipal convictions void and (2) alternatively an extraordinary writ directing the District Court to grant him a direct appeal with appointed counsel.
- The City responded that Dutton’s claims are criminal in nature, that statutory post-conviction remedies exist (22 O.S. §§ 1080–1089), and that the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal matters.
- The Supreme Court assumed limited jurisdiction only to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the merits, and concluded the claims and requested relief were criminal-appellate in nature and not within the Court’s original jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court may assume original jurisdiction to review and void municipal criminal convictions | Dutton argued his convictions violated Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (no counsel, no cross-examination, insufficient notice/evidence) and asked the Supreme Court to adjudicate and void the convictions | City argued the claims are criminal in nature, Dutton has statutory post-conviction remedies and the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction | Held: No. The Supreme Court declined to assume original jurisdiction to adjudicate merits of criminal conviction challenges; dismissal without prejudice to seeking relief in proper court |
| Whether the Court can compel the District Court to provide a direct appeal with appointed counsel | Dutton requested an order directing the District Court to grant a direct appeal of his municipal convictions and appoint counsel | City argued appellate route is statutory (appeal to District Court, then Court of Criminal Appeals); Supreme Court lacks authority to substitute or shortcut that process | Held: Denied. The Supreme Court will not direct the District Court to provide the direct appeal; relief must be sought through statutory procedures |
| Whether Dutton lacked adequate remedies, justifying extraordinary relief in Supreme Court | Dutton asserted delays and denials in District Court and Court of Criminal Appeals deprived him of relief | City showed statutory post-conviction procedures and the Court of Criminal Appeals’ role; federal courts likewise indicated state remedies are required for collateral attack | Held: The Supreme Court found adequate statutory remedies exist (post-conviction act, municipal/District Court processes) and denied extraordinary relief |
| Whether counsel should be appointed for Dutton in this original proceeding | Dutton moved for appointed counsel for the Supreme Court proceeding | City implicitly opposed; Court noted proceeding is civil/collateral, not a criminal prosecution or statutorily authorized direct appeal | Held: Denied. The Court found appointment unnecessary because it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and counsel would not aid this Court’s disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1972) (right to counsel where imprisonment may be imposed)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (civil §1983 claim that would imply invalidity of conviction barred until conviction overturned)
- City of Elk City v. Taylor, 157 P.3d 1152 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (municipal prosecutions imposing incarceration/fines are criminal matters)
- Jackson v. City of Oklahoma City, 678 P.2d 725 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984) (application of Argersinger to municipal proceedings)
- Paxton v. State, 903 P.2d 325 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (Post-Conviction Procedure Act supplants common-law writs)