KOLOSHA v. STATE
397 P.3d 479
| Okla. | 2017Background
- In 2015 pro se inmate Vitaly Kolosha sought return of a computer, photo camera, and movie camera seized in 2006, filing a "Petition for Writ of Replevin or $2500 Reimbursement" in his Tulsa County criminal case.
- Kolosha alleged the items were unrelated to his criminal charges and had not been returned.
- Tulsa County District Attorney responded: did not contest that the items were unrelated to the charges but asserted the DA’s office never had custody; the response recited Kolosha’s conviction history.
- Trial court denied relief, finding Kolosha failed to follow statutory replevin procedure and that replevin cannot be used to recover property from a party that does not possess it.
- Supreme Court retained the appeal, affirmed denial of replevin but held Kolosha’s filing was sufficient to invoke 22 O.S. §1321 and remanded for consideration of relief under that statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kolosha’s filing failed because it did not follow statutory replevin form | Filing titled "replevin" should suffice to recover property | Replevin must follow statutory procedural requirements | Court: title/form not dispositive; courts look to substance; but trial court correctly denied statutory replevin relief on procedural grounds |
| Whether replevin can be used to recover property from a party that does not possess it | Replevin should return items regardless of which agency currently holds them | DA argued his office never had custody, so replevin against DA inappropriate | Court: replevin not appropriate against a non-possessor; court affirmed denial of replevin |
| Whether §1321 provides an alternative remedy and proper procedure to recover property held by law enforcement | Kolosha’s petition substantively sought return under §1321 and should be considered under that statute | DA did not dispute items unrelated to charges but asserted non-custody; DA did not appear on appeal | Court: §1321 is applicable; remanded for §1321 process (file application, give notice to relevant agencies, court to require DA to determine whereabouts if necessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilhoit v. State, 226 P.3d 682 (Okla. 2009) (remedial statutes are to be construed liberally)
- In re Estate of Dicksion, 286 P.3d 283 (Okla. 2011) (substance and effect of a filed instrument control over its form)
- Greer v. Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Corp., 436 P.2d 50 (Okla. 1967) (remedial statutes construed to effect substantial justice)