STATE ex rel. PRUITT v. STEIDLEY
349 P.3d 554
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- The Oklahoma Attorney General (AG) filed two consolidated extraordinary writ applications seeking to prohibit Judge J. Dwayne Steidley from blocking the AG from taking and assuming control of two criminal prosecutions in Rogers County under 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(3).
- The AG entered appearances in the underlying cases (CF-2013-535 and CF-2014-5) asserting authority to initiate or appear in actions affecting state interests and, when appearing, to take control of prosecution if advisable for the State.
- Judge Steidley ruled the AG could appear but held § 18b(A)(3) permits the AG to assume control only when requested by the Governor or the Legislature; he sustained objections preventing the AG from assuming control.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted emergency stays, invited responses from the judge and the newly elected Rogers County District Attorney (DA), and consolidated the matters for decision.
- The DA and defense counsel argued the AG’s authority is concurrent, not superior, to the DA’s authority under 19 O.S. § 215.4 and that the AG may act only at the Governor’s or Legislature’s request; the AG argued § 18b(A)(3)’s plain language authorizes the AG to initiate or appear and then assume control when advisable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18b(A)(3) authorizes the AG to initiate/appear and then take/assume control of a prosecution without a request by the Governor or Legislature | AG: statute authorizes the AG to initiate or appear in actions affecting state interests and, when appearing, to assume control if advisable | Judge/Defense: statute only allows AG to appear and assume control when requested by Governor or Legislature | Held: § 18b(A)(3) authorizes the AG to initiate or appear on its own and, when so appearing, to take and assume control if the AG deems it advisable and in the State’s best interest |
| Whether the AG’s authority under § 18b(A)(3) conflicts with District Attorney authority under § 215.4, and which prevails | AG: statutes are reconcilable; when AG enters under § 18b(A)(3), its role controls | DA/Judge/Defense: DA’s authority is primary; AG cannot remove or supersede DA absent Governor/Legislature request | Held: statutes are not in conflict; where AG enters under § 18b(A)(3), any role of the DA is subservient to the AG; the later-enacted § 18b(A)(3) controls if conflict existed |
| Whether writ of prohibition was appropriate to prevent enforcement of the judge’s order blocking the AG | AG: judge’s order was unauthorized and would cause irreparable injury absent prohibition | Judge/Defense: argued statutory limits on AG authority justify the order | Held: All elements for prohibition satisfied; relief granted, stays lifted, matters remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stice, 288 P.3d 247 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) (rules of statutory construction and reconciling provisions)
- Lozoya v. State, 932 P.2d 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996) (statutory interpretation principles and legislative intent)
- Wallace v. State, 910 P.2d 1084 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996) (plain-meaning rule and statutory construction)
- Virgin v. State, 792 P.2d 1186 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990) (statutory interpretation precedent)
- State v. Young, 989 P.2d 949 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999) (courts should not insert provisions the Legislature omitted)
- Byrd v. Caswell, 34 P.3d 647 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001) (avoid construing statutes to render parts superfluous)