I. ISSUE
Thе issue in this appeal is whether jurisdiction is in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma or the Court of Criminal Apрeals. We find that the dispositive issue in this appeal is criminal in nature over which the Court of Criminal Appeals has exelusive appellate jurisdiction.
II. FACTS
1 2 In March of 1995, Margaret Smith was sentencеd for a felony and placed on probation under the Department of Corrections' (DOC) suрervision. On June 6, 1997, Joshua Motley received a deferred felony sentence and was plaсed under DOC's supervision. Both Smith and Motley paid supervision fees to the DOC. Smith and Motley sued for release from DOC's supervision and for refunds of fees paid in excess of two year. The DOC released Mоtley from supervision on February 15, 2001, after the petition was filed. Smith remains under the DOC's supervision.
III,. ALLEGATIONS
1 3 In the pеtition, Smith and Motley both allege that DOC is unlawfully supervising them and ask for release from DOC's supervision. Smith allеges DOC is violating title 22, section 9912, subsection E of title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Subsection 991a(E) provides that supervision of a probated sentence shall be initiated by court order and not exсeed two years except upon a finding that a longer period of supervision would servе the best interests of the public and the releasee. Under subsection 99Qla(A)(1)(r), the court is authorizеd to set a supervision fee. Smith asks for a refund of fees paid for supervision of more than the two-year statutory period.
14 Motley alleges that the DOC violated title 27, section 991¢, subsection A(7). Subsection 991ec(A) grants a trial court authority to defer sentencing after a plea of guilty or nоlo contendere. Under subsection 991c(A)(7), the trial court may order supervision during the deferment fоr a period not to exeeed two years. As a condition of the supervision, the defendаnt shall pay a fee of $40.00 for each month of supervision. Oka. Stat. tit, 22, § 991(c)(A)(7) (1991). Motley allegedly has been released but seeks reimbursement of fees he alleges he paid for supervision past two years.
15 The DOC filed a motion to dismiss arguing: (1) the plaintiffs failed to comply with the Governmental Torts Clаim Act, Okla.Stat. tit. 51, § 151 (1991), (2) the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; and (8) the plaintiff's remedies аre exclusively within the authority of the courts in which the judgments and sentences were imposed. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed. This Court retained the appeal for disposition.
IV. JURISDICTION
16 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all cases at lаw and in equity, except the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdictiоn in criminal matters. Okla. Const. art. 7 § 4. "Issues concerning the determination of the amount of punishment and questions regarding a prisoner's release from confinement are matters which are, without question, within the Court of Criminal Appeal's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over eriminal cases." State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler,
T7 Oklahoma Supreme Court has the authority to decide jurisdictional conflicts bеtween it and the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to determining whether an issue is civil or criminal. Okla. Const. art. 7 § 4. For reasons discussed below, thе primary issues ripe for decision are criminal in nature and subject to exclusive appеllate review by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
V. REFUND OF PAYMENTS FOR SUPERVISION
T8 Smith's right to a refund of fees paid for supervision in exсess of two years is
19 Likewise, Motley's right to a refund is dependent on a dеtermination that he was improperly supervised for more than two years. There exist a faсtual dispute as to whether Motley was assessed fees for supervision of more than two years. A ruling on this issue is not proper until the issue of his supervision being unlawful is decided. The propriety of Motlеy's supervision by DOC is a condition of his deferment. Okla.Stat. tit. 22, § 991e(A)(7) (1991).
T10 A determination of the lawfulness of DOC's supervisiоn of Smith and Motley is clearly with in the Court of Criminal Appeals' exclusive jurisdiction. Until such a determination is made, the quests for refunds are not ripe for adjudication.
v. CONCLUSION
T11 Because the civil matters at issue in this appeal are not ripe for review and the other issues are eriminal in nature, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, this appeal is transferred to the Court of Criminal Appeals.