MEYER v. ENGLE
2016 OK CR 1
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Kurt Meyer, charged with murder, sought disqualification of the assigned judge in Lincoln County; after denial by the special judge and denial of rehearing by the chief judge, Meyer filed a mandamus petition in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) on Oct. 7, 2015.
- OCCA dismissed Meyer's mandamus as untimely under its five-day filing rule (Rule 10.6(B)) and its time-computation rule (Rule 1.4), which uses calendar days (exclude first day, include last day).
- Meyer then filed an original action in the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking an order directing OCCA to withdraw the dismissal and treat his filing as timely; the Supreme Court declined the writ but issued declaratory relief instructing district court Rule 15(b) time periods be computed by business days for both civil and criminal disqualification matters.
- Meyer returned to OCCA asking it to withdraw its dismissal based on the Supreme Court’s declaration; OCCA rejected the application, holding its dismissal was a final order and no rule permits revival or rehearing.
- OCCA emphasized the bifurcated Oklahoma appellate system: OCCA has exclusive appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in criminal cases and prescribes its own filing rules, which have the force of statute; OCCA refused to apply the Supreme Court’s civil-style business-day computation to criminal appeals absent rule change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meyer) | Defendant's Argument (OCCA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCCA must withdraw its dismissal and treat Meyer’s mandamus as timely because the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared Rule 15(b) time periods are computed by business days | Meyer: Supreme Court’s declaratory order requires business-day computation for disqualification filings, making his filing timely | OCCA: The dismissal was a final order; OCCA rules (calendar-day computation) control criminal appeals; Supreme Court did not direct reversal or find OCCA exceeded authority | Held: Application rejected; OCCA will not withdraw final dismissal and maintains calendar-day computation for criminal appeals |
| Whether OCCA may assume original jurisdiction to revive a final extraordinary-writ dismissal | Meyer: Requests OCCA to withdraw prior ruling and reach merits | OCCA: No rule permits rehearing or revival; final orders denying extraordinary writs are not subject to rehearing; cannot assume original jurisdiction | Held: OCCA lacks authority under its rules to reopen the final dismissal; application improper and denied |
| Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s declaratory ruling overrides OCCA’s rules for criminal appeals | Meyer: Supreme Court’s statement applies in criminal cases too | OCCA: Supreme Court’s order was declaratory only and did not find jurisdictional conflict or that OCCA acted beyond authority; OCCA’s rules have statutory force and control criminal appeals | Held: OCCA declines to treat the Supreme Court’s declaration as directive to contravene OCCA rules; will review rules prospectively but not retroactively apply to revive this case |
| Whether counsel’s late filing excuses relief or requires alternative relief (appeal out of time) | Meyer: seeks relief based on Supreme Court declaration | OCCA: Counsel’s omission, not confusion over rules, caused untimeliness; relief exists (appeal out of time) but was not pursued; omission is counsel’s responsibility | Held: Dismissal attributable to counsel’s failure; Meyer did not seek available remedy (appeal out of time); no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 136 P.3d 671 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (mandamus filing timeliness for disqualification matters)
- Blades v. State, 107 P.3d 607 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (procedural rules for extraordinary writs)
- Dutton v. City of Midwest City, 353 P.3d 532 (Okla. 2015) (OCCA exclusive jurisdiction and supervisory writ authority in criminal matters)
- Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals, 595 P.2d 416 (Okla. 1978) (bifurcated appellate system and OCCA jurisdiction)
- Leftwich v. Alcorn, 262 P.3d 770 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (finality of OCCA extraordinary-writ orders; no rehearing)
- Banks v. State, 953 P.2d 344 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) (appeal-out-of-time procedures and protections for criminal defendants)
- Pitts v. State, 78 P.3d 551 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003) (time-computation rules and inapplicability of civil filing statutes to criminal proceedings)
- Hunnicutt v. State, 952 P.2d 988 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997) (mailbox rule limited to appeals to the Oklahoma Supreme Court)
- Hamill v. Powers, 164 P.3d 1083 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (use of extraordinary writs in pending criminal prosecutions)
- State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 786 P.2d 82 (Okla. 1990) (parties cannot circumvent OCCA exclusive jurisdiction by original action in Supreme Court)
- Corley v. Adair County Court, 134 P. 835 (Okla. Crim. App. 1913) (historical recognition of OCCA as the final criminal appellate forum)
- Cook v. State, 132 P. 341 (Okla. 1913) (early cases reflecting criminal appellate jurisdiction)