DUTTON v. CITY OF MIDWEST CITY
2015 OK 51
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Rodney Dutton was convicted in Midwest City municipal court of assault, public intoxication, and domestic assault/battery and served a jail sentence; he was later released and filed post-conviction applications in District Court.
- District Court dismissed some post-conviction applications (without prejudice), advising they should have been filed in municipal court; one District Court action remained pending. Dutton then petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction.
- Dutton alleges denial of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights: no appointed counsel at municipal trial, no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, lack of advance notice, and denial of direct or out‑of‑time appeal and adequate post‑conviction remedies. He seeks (a) vacatur of municipal convictions, or (b) an extraordinary writ compelling the District Court to provide a direct appeal with appointed counsel.
- Midwest City and federal courts responded: federal court dismissed related §1983 claims in part under Heck and other rules; the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Dutton’s post‑conviction petitions for failure to provide required certified records. Midwest City argued Dutton has statutory remedies under the Post‑Conviction Relief Act and that this is a criminal matter for the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction only to decide whether it had authority to hear the matter; it declined to adjudicate the merits or to compel the District Court to provide the requested direct appeal and denied appointment of counsel and oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to review/void municipal criminal convictions | Dutton: Supreme Court should assume original jurisdiction and adjudicate that his municipal convictions are invalid and provide relief (vacatur or direct appeal with counsel) | City: This is a criminal matter subject to statutory remedies (municipal court → District Court → Court of Criminal Appeals); Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction | Held: Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate merits of municipal criminal convictions; petition dismissed without prejudice to pursue statutory remedies |
| Whether the Court may issue an extraordinary writ directing the District Court to grant a direct appeal and appoint counsel | Dutton: Court should compel District Court to provide a new direct appeal with appointed counsel | City: District Court and Court of Criminal Appeals are the proper forums; statutory remedies exist | Held: Court will not compel District Court to provide a direct appeal or appoint counsel; relief must be sought in proper courts |
| Whether statutory/post‑conviction remedies are adequate | Dutton: Post‑conviction process has failed or been delayed; federal remedies were limited | City: Post‑Conviction Relief Act and municipal/District Court procedures provide adequate remedies; some appeals dismissed for procedural defects | Held: Adequate statutory remedies exist (Post‑Conviction Relief Act, municipal court/District Court appeals); adequacy defeats extraordinary relief here |
| Whether appointment of counsel and evidentiary hearing in this Supreme Court proceeding is warranted | Dutton: Requests counsel, hearing, oral argument to resolve constitutional claims | City: Not applicable in this original civil proceeding; limited to jurisdictional question | Held: Denied — appointment of counsel and evidentiary hearing would not assist because Court lacks authority to grant the requested relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel where imprisonment is imposed)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (limits §1983 claims that would imply invalidity of convictions)
- City of Elk City v. Taylor, 157 P.3d 1152 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (municipal prosecutions are criminal matters when penalties include imprisonment or fines)
- State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 786 P.2d 82 (Okla. 1990) (recognizes exclusive criminal appellate jurisdiction and limits on Supreme Court review of criminal sentencing matters)