Filed: Sep. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2012
Summary: KEITH RAPP, JUDGE. 1 The trial court plaintiff, Tybream Demont Rogers (Rogers), appeals a judgment denying his petition to expunge law enforcement arrest and criminal records pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, 18, 19. 1 The defendants are the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office, Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and the Oklahoma City Police Department (collectively, State). 2 This Court reverses the Order of the trial court and reman
Summary: KEITH RAPP, JUDGE. 1 The trial court plaintiff, Tybream Demont Rogers (Rogers), appeals a judgment denying his petition to expunge law enforcement arrest and criminal records pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, 18, 19. 1 The defendants are the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office, Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and the Oklahoma City Police Department (collectively, State). 2 This Court reverses the Order of the trial court and remand..
More
KEITH RAPP, JUDGE.
¶ 1 The trial court plaintiff, Tybream Demont Rogers (Rogers), appeals a judgment denying his petition to expunge law enforcement arrest and criminal records pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, §§ 18, 19.1 The defendants are the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office, Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and the Oklahoma City Police Department (collectively, State).2 This Court reverses the Order of the trial court and remands the cause for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
¶ 2 Rogers was present when gunfire erupted between rival gangs at a location in Oklahoma City. Three people were killed by gunshots. Rogers attempted to flee the scene and was apprehended. His arrest occurred on June 10, 1996.
¶ 3 Rogers was subsequently charged with three counts of murder in the first degree and one count of shooting with intent to kill. He was bound over for trial after a preliminary hearing and a jury trial was commenced in September 1999. During trial, an issue arose concerning circumstances affecting the credibility of a witness, who was a police officer. The circumstances had not been disclosed to the defense by the prosecution as required under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194. As a result, the trial court declared a mistrial on September 23, 1999, over the objections of Rogers.
¶ 4 When the State attempted to retry Rogers and his co-defendant, Rogers and his co-defendant petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for a Writ of Prohibition.3
The Court sustained their petition for Writ of Prohibition on January 14, 2000, and ruled:
Based on the record before us, we FIND the jury was unnecessarily discharged and the declaration of a mistrial was not a manifest necessity. The retrial of Petitioners is therefore barred by the double jeopardy clause of both our state and federal constitutions.
¶ 5 On January 13, 2011, Rogers petitioned for expungement of the records in that case. He cited 22 O.S.2011, § 18.
¶ 6 The State objected to the petition. For purposes of this appeal, the State's position is that Rogers does not meet the threshold requirement for relief because Rogers did not have an acquittal, a reversal of a conviction on appeal with instructions to dismiss, or a reversal of the conviction where the district attorney subsequently dismissed the charge.
¶ 7 The trial court agreed and denied relief. Rogers appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 8 The trial court's decision was based upon the legal interpretation and application of the statute. The trial court did not reach the question of whether Rogers merited relief, or the extent of relief, assuming he qualified. The issue presented is one of statutory construction, which is a question of law. Questions of law are reviewed de novo. State ex rel. Okla. State Dept. of Health v. Robertson, 2006 OK 99 ¶ 5, 152 P.3d 875, 877.
¶ 9 Matters involving legislative intent present questions of law which are examined independently and without deference to the trial court's ruling. Heffron v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 2003 OK 75, ¶ 15, 77 P.3d 1069, 1076. The appellate court has the plenary, independent, and nondeferential authority to reexamine a trial court's legal rulings. Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corp., 1996 OK 125, 932 P.2d 1100 n.1.
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
¶ 10 Rogers has the task to show that he qualifies for relief. Under the facts of his case, Rogers must look to Section 18(1) for his authority to seek expungement of his records.
¶ 11 The right to seek expungement and the circumstances giving rise to that right are fixed by statute. In re Expungement of the Record of Holder, 2009 OK CIV APP 1, ¶ 5, 219 P.3d 562, 564 (denying relief as to multiple offenses after pardon because statute did not afford relief for multiple offenses after a pardon).
¶ 12 The Court of Criminal Appeals has, on many occasions, spelled out exactly what constitutes jeopardy and what consequences flow from a finding of jeopardy.
The general rule is that the prisoner has been put in jeopardy when he has been put upon trial before a court of competent jurisdiction upon an indictment or information sufficient to sustain a conviction, and the jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the case, and the jury is discharged without sufficient cause, and without the defendant's consent; and such discharge of the jury, although improper, results in an acquittal of the defendant.
Pickens v. State, 1964 OK CR 10, ¶ 7, 393 P.2d 889, 891-92 (citations omitted).
¶ 13 The legal effect of the Writ of Prohibition issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals was to prohibit the trial court from putting the defendant upon trial again for the same crime for which he had been acquitted pursuant to the above rule. Randolph v. State, 2010 OK CR 2, ¶¶ 8-9, 231 P.3d 672, 675-76; Stough v. State, 1942 OK CR 115, 128 P.2d 1028. Thus, Rogers was clearly a person authorized to file a motion for expungement pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 18(1). Therefore, the Order of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this Opinion.
¶ 14 REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.
GOODMAN, P.J., and THORNBRUGH, J., concur.
