Duncan v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections
95 P.3d 1076
Okla.
2004
Check Treatment

*1 OK 58 DUNCAN, Teddy for himself and similarly situated,

all others

Plaintiff/Appellant, DEPARTMENT OF COR

OKLAHOMA

RECTIONS, agency State Ward, Director, De

Oklahoma, and Ron

fendants/Appellees. 98,295.

No. of Oklahoma.

Supreme Court

July

1078 *2 retention, incarceration, of all for costs of Carpenter Laquer, & Stout H. William paid to OK, compensation PTD benefits Plaintiff/Appellant. workers’ City, Oklahoma incarceration. an inmate his/her Babb, Attorney Assistant Gen- K. Charles Thus, affirm the trial court’s dismissal. *3 OK, Defendants/Ap- eral, City, Oklahoma AND PART I. OF REVIEW STANDARD pellees. JURIS- INTERPRETATION STATUTORY LAVENDER, J. PRUDENCE. ¶ Teddy Dun- Plaintiff/appellant/inmate, 1 ¶ meaning gauge 3 In this case we defendants/appellees, the Oklahoma sued can 549(B)(1) 22(13)(b), § and decide (DOC) and its Department of Corrections plaintiffs which controls the fate Director, challenged He DOC’s Ron Ward. paid during imprisonment. his Con incarceration, retain, one to legal “A fronting question is a of law. us (100%) compen- percent of workers’ hundred involving statutory is question interpretation (PTD) bene- sation ..., i.e., subject non- review a to de novo during him his incarceration. paid fits to deferential, independent plenary review plaintiff were awarded The PTD benefits ruling.” v. legal Fulsom trial court’s Workers’ by the Oklahoma ¶ 654, 652, Fulsom, 96, 2, 81 P.3d (WCC) injury for work-related occur- Court Multiple Injury Trust citing v. Samman imprisonment while he was ring prior Fund, n. OK 8 and 33 P.3d Corporation.1 Energy E employed by G &O n. 305 and pursuant to dismiss moved Defendants 2012(B)(6), re O.S.2001, appellate tri- 4 The review standard arguing trial dismissal for failure subject garding to dismissal for a court’s petition al court was upon grant which relief a claim which relief can be upon a claim state failure state essence, novo, inquiry interpreting ed also de ultimate granted. could be is ascertaining legal suffi to allow DOC to revolves around Eat ciency plaintiffs petition. Hayes a v. paid all his incar- retain PTD benefits Inc., ceration, eries, its trial court issued Order Hayes Granting to Dismiss.2 stated: Defendants’ Motion ¶2 for fail- Review of a trial court’s dismissal appealed and Plaintiff III, (COCA), a can affirmed. to state claim which relief Appeals Division ure Civil consid- previ- granted is de novo involves sought He review which we be certiorari plaintiffs petition a ously granted case a eration of whether because the involves hold, Akin, P.2d although Gay v. impression question. legally sufficient. first We (Okla.1988). O.S.2001, allows 989 f.n. 13 When review- DOC incarceration, appellate a court charge, ing no more such dismissal for costs challenged fifty take as true all of the percent than of amounts from an must income, allegations together rea- pleading’s with all inmate’s benefits, may drawn including re- inferences which be workers’ sonable Savings them. Plains deposited ceived on Great Federal behalf of account, P.2d Dabney, Loan Association DOC-maintained his/her (Okla.1993). 22(13)(b), specific pleading 1090 f.n. “A a more recent ex- intent, not be dismissed for failure to state pression mandates DOC must law, question Teddy Deciding the issue involved Plaintiff/appellant/inmate, Duncan's suit against defendants/appellees, Granting August the Oklahoma De- court’s 2002 Order the trial Director, (DOC) partment and its of Corrections plain- Dismiss ruled Defendants' Motion to Ward, brought Ron on behalf himself petition to would be unable to amend his tiff i.e., inmates, similarly plaintiff other sought situated note, cognizable claim. We also 12 O.S. state 2001, litigate case a class action. The Sess. 2012 was amended 2002 Okla. ruling by presented record to us does not show 2012). Laws, (12 O.S.Supp.2003, Ch. certification, presum- the trial court as class impact disposition The amendment does not our plaintiff's ably trial court determined because the here. subject suit was to dismissal. legally cognizable allega- claim unless the 6 It is also the settled rule when a beyond any construing court seemingly tions indicate doubt that the conflicting stat specific utes that litigant prove can no set of which facts statute controls one over general more applicability entitle him to relief.” would Frazier v. and the most recent enactment Bryan Hospital Authority, controls over Memorial an earlier (Okla.1989) one. v. Hayes, Milton (emphasis 1989 OK 770 P.2d 14, 15. It is further original). understood that when statutory provisions two irreconcilably Hayes, 905 P.2d at 780. conflict an implied repeal will of the earlier keep general provision more We also in mind City when found. matter, *4 Springs Department Sand v. reviewing primary goal this the of Public Wel 36, fare, 1139, 1980 statutory interpretation is to OK 608 P.2d Fi ascertain and 1151. nally, Legislature’s specific the more recent follow the intention. See Ful statute ¶ som, 96, 7, modify will be 655; determined to or supercede OK at 81 P.3d at see earlier, general only more statute also to the ex Pump Brewington, 1992 TRW/Reda necessary tent 31, 15, avoid the OK P.2d 20. irreconcilable plain “[T]he mean Id.; inconsistency. conflict or Up see also ing of a language statute’s is conclusive ex ton v. State ex. rel. Department Correc cept in when the rare case literal construc ¶ tions, 46, 11-13, OK 88. produces demonstrably tion a result at odds Samman, with legislative intent.” 2001 OK PART II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR- ¶ at relying City P.3d at on AL BACKGROUND. Board, Employees Tulsa v. Public Relations ¶ ¶ 92, 14, 1998 OK P.2d 1220. A forth pertinent allega- We set factual duty-bound give legisla tions, court is them, effect or reasonable inferences from acts, amend, repeal tive not or circumvent in petition, contained court trial as Tulsa, City them. at we must reviewing take same as true in the 967 P.2d at 1221. a court trial When is called on plaintiff court’s dismissal.3 In 1983 statute, a interpret injured the court has no au working Energy for O G & E thority merely Corporation.4 to rewrite the enactment be He per- was determined to be comport cause it not manently does with the totally by court’s disabled of the order prudent public policy. Also, view of id. in began See WCC 1991 and receiving PTD bene- Legis wisdom choices made within September fits. In 1999 he an in- became law-making sphere lature’s are our not con mate of plaintiff DOC.5 learned cern, all, i.e., 100%, because those choices—absent constitu being of his PTD benefits were tional other recognized infirmity rightly deposited clearing to DOC’s account for — lie within the domain. See “revolving Ful transfer to its fund” for costs of som, at 658. his incarceration.6 Only allegations, 3. Treasury. factual O.S.Supp.2003, § reasonable infer- See A dif- 541. therefrom, fund, necessary ences simply Revolving deemed resolve ferent Fund, called the DOC place legal question(s) case before us consists monies from several sources proper perspective expenditures are set forth. are Plaintiff’s from it to be used petition O.S.2001, legal general operating expenses also contains conclusions. We dis- DOC. 57 view, issue(s). revolving cuss as them needed frame the In our fund that is repository plaintiff's the ultimate workers’ compensation permanent (PTD) plaintiff’s injury The exact nature of is not Fund, Revolving benefits presented is the DOC not appeal. delineated in the record on Revolving 541 Industries Fund mentioned plaintiff's petition. Title 57 plaintiff 5. When filed in the suit trial court in 549(C) provides: imprisoned private he was a correctional facility Watonga, Oklahoma. Neither term may [DOC] costs of assess incarceration imprisonment of his nor crime for which he against beginning September all inmates on appeal was convicted are revealed record. costs Such shall be debt of the inmate may owed [DOC] be collected as petition provided by trial Plaintiff’s court refers to 57 O.S. law for collection of concerning § 541 provisions a statute the DOC Industries civil debt. In addition to Fund, Revolving authorizing expenditure fund maintained in the State section of inmate trust plaintiff be unable to amend plaintiff cided would his lawsuit asserted 8 Via because, effect, petition to state a claim no more DOC retain allowed legal question matter around a revolved his workers’ bene-

than 50% question, and the answer sought an He of incarceration. fits reten- allowed distribution concerning the PTD DOC accounting from paid all the PTD DOC of benefits retained, recov- had received benefits it incarceration, required during his dismissal claimed had been over- ery amount he and, affirmed of the suit. The COCA effect, (i.e., anything over 50% charged noted, previously granted re- certiorari incarceration paid since his PTD benefits view. 1999) injunctive relief to September future of more retention prohibit DOC plaintiff asserts to inter- 10 On certiorari paid PTD than 50% pret two as the trial court and statutes He also attacked DOC done, his incarceration.7 improper have constitutes COCA 120230(I)(B)(5)(b), operat- rule or DOC OP PTD He diminishment of his vested benefit. all DOC to retain of an ing policy, public policy that allows questions the consider- him, totally for costs of incarcera- in- treating inmate’s disabled ations inmate, tion, interpre- healthy who being differently inconsistent with his mate *5 22(13)(b) 549(B)(1), § while and to § which to work incarcerated tation able regard no than 50% of income in to have more could be harmonized he asserted his/her effect, prison employment from taken for costs of plaintiff argued in In PTD benefits.8 Plaintiff asserts that the dis- incarceration. in language contained the trial court that inmate, who cannot work because abled 22(13)(b) procedur- § was intended as a disability, disadvantaged will leave PTD to by which the benefits were al device money him- prison to re-establish with no account, inmate rather his be directed society, healthy in- in seh/herself disposi- as to the ultimate than as a mandate mate, imprisoned in who has worked while He the con- of those benefits. asserted tion type upon prison employment, some will authority on as DOC’s trolling statute least, have, discharge funds some available for of the benefits costs retention account(s) start anew in inmate life his/her instead, 549(B)(1), was, § which incarceration outside walls. charge not than more 50% allows DOC prison employ- inmate’s III. from an PART ANALYSIS. amounts income, including other workers’ ment or Legislature II11 In June 1993 benefits, compensation received on behalf of 22(13)(b) compensa § to our added workers’ deposited DOC- an inmate his/her statutes, September tion to be effective account. maintained Laws, 349, § 1993 Okla. Ch. 10. Sess. § dismissal, Though 22 has been amended several moved for in es- 119Defendants 22(13)(b) addition, § since has re sence, times statutory provisions two positing the provides: It mained unaltered. irreconcilably as to PTD inconsistent were 22(13)(b) Any controlled. The employee convicted a misde- benefits agreed felony with defendants and dis- or to a term trial court meanor sentenced ninety days failure to state claim which of at missed for of incarceration least granted. trial shall have all benefits for relief could be court de- in this state incarceration, any for costs of of his PTD benefits for costs of incarceration funds 50% rnonies 549(B)(l)'s language. received for costs of incarceration shall be We under also note deposited Revolving in [DOC] Fund. allege plaintiff does not or contend in his trial language Given of the last sentence of petition any we have court or in other document 549(C), appears it to us unmistakable the PTD provided in this matter that the amount of been money by costs benefit retained DOC for of in- be his PTD benefit received or to received ultimately deposited carceration is to to the be exceeds amount costs his incarceration of the Revolving DOC Fund delineated in incarceration. of his i.e., Throughout filing litigation, petition, part appeal court of the Plaintiff’s trial petition filing trial court thru the of his certiorari record, 120230(I)(B)(5)(b) 30, 2002, copy petition plaintiff, has of DOC OP on in ef- December fect, admits or DOCis allowed retain attached it. concedes disability permanent 22(13)(b) temporary total At the time added partial disability provided: awarded Workers’ paid during B. The State Board of Corrections shall period deposited of incarceration to the cause to placed be in an account income pursu- credit of an established account the inmate’s ant to Section of Title 57 income accruing benefits to or payable to and for the benefit of in- Oklahoma Statutes distribution said mate, including any compensa- Department workers’ full to the of Corrections Security tion or Social benefits. incarceration. The State 1. From power Board shall this account the of Corrections have the State Board of may charge Corrections collect workers’ benefits [working] private prison industries or prisoner provided on behalf any other inmate for costs of incarcera- subparagraph and to distribute the fifty percent tion not to exceed provided by law. any deposits made to said account. added).9 (emphasis conformity with Laws, 5; 1992 Okla. Sess. Ch. 22(13)(b) promulgated DOC OP O.S.Supp.1992, § 549(B)(l)(emphasis add- 120230(I)(B)(5)(b). provides: It ed).11 All compensa- Oklahoma awarded workers’ plainly expresses, Subsection benefits received for unambiguous clear and language, an inten- disability temporary partial tion that inmates situation “shall an inmate with an incarceration sentence paid during have all ... [PTD] days of at will deposited least period deposited of incarceration *6 department’s clearing for account transfer pursu- the credit of an account established (85 revolving [§] fund. O.S. Section ant to 549 ... for distribution in full to 13)10 Paragraph [DOC] (empha- for costs incarceration.” 22(13)(a) 549(B)(2) 549(B)(3) § § 9. 85 § was also added to to and former 549(B)(3) § provides: 549(B)(4). § § in 1993 and it to a new numbered § § The to amendments 549 are found in 9 of Any employee convicted of a misdemeanor or Bill Senate No. 1397. The amended version of felony and sentenced to a term of incarceration 549(B)(l)-(2), § underlining showing with addi- ninety days any of at least state or in tions, follows: jurisdiction other have shall all benefits for tem- B. The State porary Board of Corrections shall cause disability by the awarded Workers' placed be to in an income account from the by Court forfeited order of the any inmate’s other income or employer employ- Court on motion or of the accruing payable benefits to to for employee’s er's insurer after confirmation inmate, including any benefit of said workers’ may incarceration. The Court also order the compensation Security or Social benefits. forfeiture of such benefits on its own motion 1. From upon receipt this account the State Board of Cor- of notice from the Director of charge may rections for incarceration person [DOC] that awarded the is benefits any [working] private prison indus- facility operated incarcerated as an inmate in a any by tries other inmate costs of incarcera- provisions with [DOC]. under contract The (50%) fifty percent any not to exceed subparagraph apply any of this not shall to bene- account, deposits made said unless said de- compensable inju- fits awarded to an posits compensation were by from workers' employ ries sustained the inmate in the while benefit. private for-profit employer of a or while em- account, industries, 2. From ployed private the State Board Cor- involving may charge any rections incarceration, for-profit employer, inmate for costs of which deal in interstate com- equivalent an amount to one products merce or which sell or services to the percent any deposits hundred government. federal compensation workers benefit said account. concerning by 10. No issue retention DOC compensation temporary partial 549(B)(1) workers' disabil- § The other amendment made to ity benefits is before in this us case. by Legislature since 1992 made was one "working” with substitution of the word April "employed”. On 2004 the word Governor Oklahoma We have noted this signed (passed by change quotes into law Senate Bill No. 1397 in the in the text and this footnote Ch.166, 549(B)(1) Laws, Legislature) § which amends Okla. brackets. 1996 Sess. 549(B)(2), § the content of moves former § is paid during his incarceration added). in man- PTD benefits provision is written sis and, impermissible diminishment of vested may only an believe be language datory benefit, PTD mis- compensation workers’ that is entitled way, that is DOC read in one Special Indemnity Valenti In taken. paid during the PTD benefit 100% Fund, 197, the APP 2000 OK CIV for the costs prisoner’s incarceration case) (same COCA, Ill division as in this Div. DOC OP prisoner’s incarceration. 22(13)(b) correctly recognized that does 120230(I)(B)(5)(b) is consis- conforms diminish, i.e., of, the alter the amount not statutory language and its tent with APP PTD award. CIV Valenti legislative intent. expressed plainly 22(13)(b) ¶8, Instead, § at 199. contradistinction pay merely PTD benefit redirects the 549(B)(1), 22(13)(b), plain also in (in custodian, DOC es- to the inmate’s debt language, permissively allows unambiguous OHahoma), sence, entity State inmates, for costs of incarcer charge DOC custody the inmate’s responsible for care ation, of income than 50% no more such, imprisonment. period As income, in employment and inmate’s 22(13)(b) cannot considered substan- benefits, cluding workers’ change vested to PTD tive account. The two placed in inmate’s ended, has After his incarceration benefits. in absolute tension with each provisions are benefits, assuming is still enti- he irreconcilably as con they conflict other and any pertinent to them under and valid tled compensation PTD benefits. workers’ cerns order, longer no WCC will be so redirected.12 22(13)(b) one prevail and that One must plaintiff argues in his ¶ 16 The as PTD are concerned. far so petition interpreting certiorari provision expresses said This is so because retention DOC allow legislative intent as to PTD the most recent public of his PTD benefits violates 100% 22(13)(b) specifically address interpretation policy. He asserts such benefits, is more while es those treating disabled inmates—who are sanctions income of generally concerned with inmate job imprisoned unable work all kinds. and, thus, of their earn because *7 ¶ rule in favor For to us healthy “wages”—worse than inmates—who rewriting language the position would entail earn income are able to work and while 22(13)(b), § something we have no warrant not have all of said imprisoned, but who do Legislature to undertaking. If the seeks in of incarceration. He income taken costs entitlement, for incarcer- costs of limit DOC’s asserts the inmate who works while also ation, of a PTD benefit to less than 100% 549(A)(5), has, twenty incarcerated under to virtue of work- being paid an inmate percent “wages” earned during period of compensation ers’ order the imprisonment during placed in an account for body it imprisonment, that that inmate’s inmate, payable upon the to dis him/her date, To express must such intent. which totally charge, the inmate has while disabled it has not done so and is not Legislature opportunity “wages” to and no work earn power, realm of this Court’s under within the prison employment, part of which could statutory interpretation or con- guise discharge. inmate upon set aside for said struction, Legislature to what has do will, heathy Plaintiff contends the express legislation. in its failed to thus, money at some prison leave with least ¶ anew, totally argument, to ef to start life disabled 15 Plaintiffs fect, statutory prison re pro two inmate will leave with no funds to interpret that to society. retain 100% of the visions to allow DOC to establish himself/herself plaintiff supra being paid pursuant for PTD bene- we set note to 57 the monies As out O.S.2001, 549(C), example, For case not decide who costs incarceration fits. this does monies, priority We also would have to PTD benefit are a debt the inmate owed DOC. it, part pitting DOC's we before us in this case some situation note that do not have spouse any question priority thereto with that of a former between DOC and entitlement as plaintiff support. child entity person on a valid lien for another other than based ¶ public policy argument 17 Plaintiffs suf- expression the most recent least, One, from, Therefore, fers two flaws. absent will. the trial correctly court recognized infirmity, granted constitutional defendants’ motion to dismiss for Legislature it public is the that sets the plaintiffs failure to state claim which State, Court, policy of this not this as to the granted relief could be and the COCA did compensation direction of workers’ benefits in affirming not err the trial court’s dismiss- inmates their confinement. al. Two, above, totally noted in we opinion 19 The of the Court of Civil inmate will disabled have source of income Appeals is VACATED and the trial court upon discharge by disability, of his virtue Granting Order Defendants’ Motion to Dis- assuming benefit still in force miss is AFFIRMED. any pertinent under valid and WCC order. note, Finally, plaintiff has cited con- no ¶ WATT, C.J., HODGES,

trolling authority legislative public that the LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, policy made in area choices this are constitu- EDMONDSON, JJ., WINCHESTER and infirm, tionally or otherwise such that concur. rightful authority Court has to strike ¶ OPALA, V.C.J., KAUGER and down those choices.13 BOUDREAU, JJ., dissent. PART IV. CONCLUSION. A, V.C.J., OPAL with whom KAUGER impression 18 This case a first concerns BOUDREAU, JJ., join, dissenting. question, to wit: does 22(13)(b) O.S.2001, 549(B)(1) today The court or 57 vacates con- Appeals’ opinion Civil trol the ultimate affirms trial compensa- fate of workers’ order, (a) court’s dismissal declaring paid benefits plaintiff during dealing right two statutes his with the State’s incarceration under the control in the custody DOC? In that incarcerated con- statutory provisions, these two to victs —one enacted relation earlier which authorizes being paid plaintiff fifty percent PTD benefits dur- seizure compen- of one’s ing imprisonment, irreconcilably are in sation award1 and the later of the entire conflict, controls, pari it is both the award2 —are not in materia on the specific subject more statute as to such of an incarcerated convict’s nothing 13. We note in our O.S.Supp. decision we held DOC was authorized previous 549(A)(4)-(5) case conflicts with our decisions to with- State, Cumbey v. portion prison "wages” draw a of an inmate's denied, cert. U.S. 106 S.Ct. apply compensa- toward court victim Maynard, L.Ed.2d 94 v.Webb imposed upon tion fees that had been in the him *8 denied, cert. 517 U.S. imprisonment. criminal case that had led to his (1996). 116 S.Ct. 134 L.Ed.2d 557 Cumbey prison concerned income inmate from 1. The terms of 57 O.S.2001 are: programs. labor and work release There The B. State Board of Corrections shall cause held, part, in as such a income considered placed to be account an income from the gratuity serving penological objectives certain any inmate's other income or actually wages thought and was not in a of accruing payable or for the employer-employee relationship, pris traditional inmate, including any benefit of said workers' deprived any on inmates were not of vested Security or Social benefits. property they interest to which were entitled re the From this account State Board of Cor- 1) garding by statutory provisions the income re may any charge working rections quiring percentage placed a certain of it to be prison private any or industries other inmate mandatory savings account be released to fifty for costs of incarceration not to exceed 2) discharge prison the inmate or percent any deposits of made to said withholding not in excess of 50% income from account. pay certain labor to the costs of incar added). (emphasis Nothing Cumbey ceration. is inconsistent 22(13)(b) with a determination 85 22(13)(b) pertinent 2. The terms of 85 O.S.2001 retain, authorizes DOC to for costs of incarcera are: tion, paid during all PTD benefits (b) Any employee incarceration or that over controls convicted of a misdemeanor 549(B)(1). conflicting felony the terms of In Webb or sentenced to term of incarcera- pro- a “bill of attainder” nance constitutes compensation benefits adjudged receive §2 The (b) Okl. Const.5 by hibited Art. the disability and permanent total of- an award’s forfeiture statute, whether being the most recent later-enacted interdic- the constitutional fends Oklahoma will, the supersedes expression of of estate” as against “forfeiture tion pro- the court’s Because earlier version. Neither is addressed incident of conviction.6 is- dispositive the fails to reach nouncement today’s pronouncement.7 controversy,31 recede public-law sues this opinion. its I only controversy not 2 In the court is duty, free, entirely but also bears EXTRAJUDI- THE STATUTORY DOES questions its formulation of the make own OF A PRISON- CIAL FORFEITURE issues, Two both resolved.4 that must be BENEFITS ER’S COMPENSATION dimension, (FOR ab- appear having a constitutional THE EXPENSE OF INCAR- today’s CERATION) necessary solutely pronounce- NO TO WITH DUTY statutory ment. The first whether THE COST FOR ACTUAL ACCOUNT prisoner’s of a com- extrajudicial forfeiture UPKEEP OF THAT PRISONER’S (for incarcera- ATTAIN- the cost of A BILL OF pensation CONSTITUTE tion) BY TERMS duty to for the actual DER PROHIBITED THE with no account §2 prisoner’s mainte- OF ART. OKL. CONST.? institutional cost of the are; Const., days ninety The of Art. Okl. in this state terms at least dis- all benefits for shall have attainder, law, post facto nor No bill of ex ability temporary partial disability awarded or contracts, obligation shall impairing the law paid the Workers' passed. work ever be No conviction shall deposited to period of incarceration estate; corruption of blood or forfeiture pursuant of an account established credit Provided, prohibit provision shall not 57 of Oklahoma 549 of Title to Section pecuniary penalties. imposition of Depart- in full distribution Statutes for (emphasis supplied). for costs of incarcera- ment Corrections counterpart targets not The U.S. Constitution's tion. Congress legislatures. also state but added). (emphasis are: Art. 1 cl. U.S. Const. Its terms public private between law 3. The distinction Alliance, any Treaty, No State shall enter into legal Anglo-American recognized in is well Confederation; grant Marque and or Letters of acknowledged system. distinct- Blackstone Credit; Reprisal; Money; emit coin Bills two bodies of law. Blackstone's ness of these Thing gold make Coin but silver Ill, p. Vol. Commentaries England, Debts; the Laws of on Payment pass any Bill of Tender Attainder, IV, [public wrongs] wrongs], p. [private Vol. Law, post impairing or Law ex facto 1859). (Wendell's private wrong ed. He defined Contracts, grant any Obligation of Title privation private infringement as an Nobility. individuals, belonging rights civil considered (emphasis supplied). individuals, merely and therefore termed civil equivalent prohibition of this State's federal wrongs injuries, public were as a described 9,§ against appears in Art. 1 cl. bills attainder rights public and duties breach and violation of affecting 3, U.S. Its terms are: Const. community, as a entire considered post shall No of Attainder or ex facto Law Bill community. Notwithstanding late Blackstone's passed. eighteenth-century teachings, "public the term commonly used in the United States. law” is not 6. For the constitutional interdiction of forfeiture Cappalli, Common Method The American Law estate, pertinent terms Art. 2 see the *9 (1997), pg. 177. Const., supra Old. note 5. theory 4. This court is never chained exact prisoner challenged, grounds, the The on 7. presented the case was to the trial on which retain, right Department of Correction’s resolving purely public-law is is court when it incarceration, Goodrich, 14, 3, the full of his the costs of amount v. B.F. 1992 sues. Davis OK L, 587, total dis- benefits for (Opala, concurring)(cit 826 P.2d 593-94 Fund, ability. chal- a discussion of the various For ing Reynolds Special v. Indemn. 1986 OK 64, 14, 1265, 1270); lenges legislation, see reimbursement v. 725 P.2d Burdick Inde Blum, Construction, Ap- George Validity, and County, L. pendent Dist. 52 School No. Oklahoma of 48, 54; 49, 10, plication Requiring State Statute Inmate v. 702 P.2d McCracken 1985 OK of 9, 18, ¶63, Expense Incarcera- City Government Reimburse Lawton 1982 OK 648 P.2d of of tion, (1993). 872 13 ALR5lh n. 11.

1085 legislative of is legislative 3 A bill attainder8 a act hends “a of perpetual decree ex judicial punishment a inflicts without clusion a from chosen vocation” from legislatively punish If the trial.9 inflicted government-conferred some other advan death, less than ment be the enactment tage. surely, Most attainder also includes an pains penalties.10 a bill of and termed The legislatively act which wills the loss of law- constitution, provisions of this Art. 2 State’s prescribed on-the-job inju benefits from an 15,11 prohibit legislature which ry 14—the loss to be addressed in this case. attainder,12 encompass passing bill of with proscription terms a of bills their like of penalties. In pains and the attainder context

“punishment” imprison more than means

ment, It compre fine or a death sentence.13 9, against commonly supra 323; of Cummings, 8. Bills attainder were used note 71 U.S. at " Welsh, political groups English supra Parliament found note 8 at 83-84. 'Pains adjudicated penalties' treasonous. Parliament historically activities array of a consisted wide punished deemed treasonous and them death. punishments: commonly impris- included were The framers of the onment, banishment, United States Constitution—to punitive and the confisca- bill whom a of attainder doubtless meant an act property by sovereign.” tion of Nixon v. legislature person of the that sentenced a Services, 425, Administrator General 433 U.S. prevented inheriting death and his heirs from 474, 2777, 2806, (1977) 97 S.Ct. 53 L.Ed.2d 867 property the interdiction bills of at- (citations omitted). —deemed necessary guard to be a tainder constitutional legislative against judicia- encroachment on 15, Const., 11. For the terms of 2Art. Okl. see Welsh, ry, Jane federal and state. The Bill of supra note 5. Unqualified Attainder Clause: An Process, Guarantee of 77, (1983). 50 Brook. L.Rev. 83-85 12. State Hamp- Mut. Assur. Co. America v. Life centuiy, Supreme twentieth U.S. ton, 19, ¶ 2, 1027, 3, n. prohibition (against extended der) bills attain- J., (Opala, concurring) n. 3 legislative punish, all acts that without a trial, easily either named individuals or ascer- Lovett, Nestor, 628, 603, Flemming class tainable members. United v. See v. States 363 U.S. 303, 1073, 1367, 1382, (1960) (Doug- U.S. S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. 1252 S.Ct. 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 Welsh, (1946); (discuss- las, J., supra (a see dissenting) at 90-93 Bulgarian immigrant's so- ing interpretation the Court's broadened security cial benefits were forfeited because he Clause). Bill of Attainder party). had been a member of the communist J., by Douglas, quotes Irving dissent 315, Lovett, 8, Brant, ("Ad- supra note 328 U.S. at S.Ct. 363 U.S. at 80 S.Ct. at 1382 Missouri, citing Cummings v. State dress entitled Bills of Attainder in 1787 and 277, 323, (4 Wall.) (1866). U.S. Today. L.Ed. 356 As pub- Columbia Law Review dinner rule, general specifically bills of attainder iden Emergency lished in 1959 Civil Liberties tify persons persons classes who are to be Committee, Congressional under the title Investi- deprived punishment. of a as a kind of Attainder”): gations and Bills of (a Cummings, supra, priest was barred from 'Today's bill attainder is broader than Garland, practising profession); parte Ex form, sharp. classic and not There so tall Wall.) 333, (a (4 lawyer U.S. 18 L.Ed. 366 torture, place physical mental Lovett, practice); was barred from federal-court confiscation of tomorrow's bread butter supra note U.S. 66 S.Ct. at 1079 yesterday's gold. instead land What is (the legislative Court struck down determina hate, perfectly prejudice clear is that fear and guilt wages); tion of that resulted in the loss play today, role Brown, same the destruction of 437, 443, States v. United 381 U.S. rights they Eng- human America did in (1965) (the S.Ct. 14 L.Ed.2d 484 lords, judges, land when frenzied mob of Court struck act down an that focused bishops (the and shoemakers turned the Oates easily Titus identifiable members of a class Com Hate, hangman's jeal- Party) blacklist into record. imposed munist on them the sanction office). ousy spite mandatory job continue to fill the of a forfeiture See just they jurisprudence (cid:127)attainder lists did also Oklahoma in the Irish in Golden v. Ok Bd., 57, ¶ 2, County ex-King Parliament of Election James.’ fuskee J., (Opala, dissenting); Haley Lovett, Board, *10 Beverage supra 14. note Oklahoma Alcoholic 328 U.S. at 66 S.Ct. Control 1121, 1046, 1079; Brown, 9, 58, 1050; 447, supra 1984 OK CIV APP 696 at note 381 U.S. at 1714; Henslee, Beverage Cooper 85 v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Control Board v. S.Ct. at 257 Ark. 1989, 2-3, 534, 963, ¶¶ 391, J., Seely, (1975)(Fogleman, 621 P.2d 522 538- S.W.2d 400 J., result). (Opala, concurring concurring). 39

1086 15, 2 § Art. Okl. The terms of

II States. Const.,19 the common law explicitly abolish COMPENSA- OF DOES FORFEITURE an imposed a forfeiture of estate as THE OFFEND TION BENEFITS felony incident of conviction20 but adds IN- CONSTITUTIONAL OKLAHOMA pecuniary not fines. abolition does include AGAINST “FORFEI- TERDICTION ¶ By 6 terms of 85 O.S.2001 INCI- ESTATE” AS AN TURE OF 22(13)(b)21 bring the State is authorized DENT OF CONVICTION? extrajudicial all forfeiture of about an ¶ a felo- conviction of 4 Forfeiture anyone of awarded convicted of ny of three kinds15 or treason was one and, example, sentenced a misdemeanor English at the recognized by law forfeitures term, 90-day jail provide with to a itself The Rights. of Bill of of ratification time expense for the of incarcera- reimbursement paraded under the verbal then institution given a carte tion. The blanche State property, of All estate.” garb “forfeiture prisoner’s it entire award —whether seize those stood personal, of all who real (a) duty $20,000 $20 be for or —without felony forfeita- or treason was convicted of spent for the actual amount to account forfeiture, This kind of ble to the Crown. (b) 90-day prisoner’s prison upkeep and justified by the punishment, grounded disgorge any funds seized in forfei- excess was a derived property belief that actual incarceration costs. ture above the by a society lost which could be violator society’s laws.16 opinion 7 Because the court’s declines statute in con- decide whether forfeiture 5 The framers the U.S. Constitution17 facially violative of the fundamental Congress18 reject- test the first and members of (a) prohibition against passage of bills English forfeiture law’s common-law ed use (b) against forfeitures penalty a criminal the United of attainder of estate as (1) (1827)); Pickup, supra, 1965 Red kinds are forfeitures One Chevrolet 15. The other two (2) 14, proceedings. in statute-based 15 at For a discus deodands and note at 820-21. brief classes, only statute- gene Of the forfeitures in three crime and their sion instrumentalities of proceedings Warden, forfeiture, in the States. based survive United see Md. sis the law 303, of deodands is on the 294, ancient law founded The Penitentiary Hayden, v. U.S. 87 387 (or animal) object an inanimate an 1648, fiction that may 1642, (1967); S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 782 Bisac wrongdoing. guilty The of an value cia, supra 15 at 187. note (or animal) causing object inanimate King's subject was death of the forfeitable 3,§ 2 The of Art. 3 cl. the U.S. 17. terms States, 602, v. United U.S. Crown. Austin 611, 509 (the clause) expressly pro- Constitution treason 2801, 2806, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 113 S.Ct. English hibit use of common-law criminal Holmes, (citing c. 1 O. Common Law, penalty of forfeiture for treason. In addition (1881), supra 1 Biackstone’s Commentaries, interdiction, the re- the treason clause framers 300-301). Of the most notable statuto- note 3 at ry pro- jected penalty the criminal forfeiture English were known to the law forfeitures hibiting governments and state both national affected commodities and vessels those which 3, 9, passing Art. cl. bills of attainder. 1 laws. used in violation of customs revenue Const., supra U.S. note cl. 5. Co., Leasing Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht 2080, 2091-92, 682-83, U.S. 94 S.Ct. Austin, (1974); drafting U.S. supra, at 18. the earliest Punishment U.S. L.Ed.2d 452 611-13, Congress expressly at For extended Crimes Bill in the first 113 S.Ct. 2806-07. recog- rejected penal- types as a of the three of forfeiture the use of forfeiture criminal discussion eigh- English ty. nized law the late See Act for Certain An the Punishment of Austin, States, century, supra, Cong., at Against see U.S. 2d teenth Crimes Sess., the United 1st 611-16, 2806-09; Calero-Toledo, April (prohibiting 113 S.Ct. at use Act of 680-85, crime). supra, at penalty U.S. 94 S.Ct. at 2090-92. as criminal of forfeiture Bisaccia, A.2d 45 N.J. See State law, (1965). For Oklahoma decisional Supra note Pickup, v. One 1965 Red Chevrolet see State 82, 14, 820-21. 2,¶ Hampton, (Opa- supra note at 1035 la, J., concurring). 611-12, Austin, supra note 509 U.S. at (citing S.Ct. 2806-07 1 William Biackstone's 22(13)(b), see supra 21. For terms of O.S.2001 3 at 381-82 and The note Commentaries, 1, 14, (12 Wheat) supra Palmyra, L.Ed. 531 note 2. 25 U.S. *11 conviction, I must estate incident to one’s pronouncement. from its

recede

2004 OK 66 Petitioner, PATTERSON,

Robbie Lee INC., ESTELL TRUCKING

SUE CO. Compensation

and The Workers’

Court, Respondents. 99,342.

No.

Supreme Court Oklahoma.

July Edmonson, Shawnee, OK, D.

Randy Appellant. Taylor, Kelly

Catherine C. M. Greenough, Perrine, McGivern, Redemann, Reid, Berry tulsa, OK, Taylor, Respondents. & EDMONDSON, J. granted Certiorari was this review

proceeding from an order the Workers’ question Court to address this May injured of law: worker be denied temporary benefits because his following was terminated injury? negative We answer and va- opinion Appeals cate the three-judge vacate the order of the review panel, cause to remand the the trial grant tribunal with directions to the worker’s claim.