Opinion
Nos. 100432 (surviving number), 100339 (cons. w/100432)
April 13, 2004
ORDER
Because appeal No. 100,339 presents the same substantial argument and seeks the same relief as this original proceeding that challenges a trial court order which operates to direct the discretionary functions of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs, an agency under the executive department of government, the appeal is recast into an application for writ of prohibition. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Tidwell, 1991 OK 119, 820 P.2d 1338. On the court's own motion, Cause No. 100,339 is consolidated with the original action docketed as No. 100,432 to bear the surviving No. 100,432.
Original jurisdiction is assumed. Let a writ issue prohibiting the respondent judge, The Honorable Thomas S. Walker, from pursuing measures relating to enforcement of the respondent's January 16, 2004 order in that cause now pending before the District Court in Carter County, which is styled in the Matter of M.R.C., an alleged delinquent, and there docketed as No. JDL-2003-77, against the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs only. Under the circumstances presented in this original proceeding, the district court is powerless to control, by contempt or otherwise, the discretionary acts and decisions of an agency in the executive department of government. Article IV § 1 Okl. Const.; Fields v. Driesel, 1997 OK CR 33, 941 P.2d 1000.
No other aspect of the identified juvenile proceeding stands affected by this order.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2004.
OPALA, V.C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, BOUDREAU and EDMONDSON, JJ., CONCUR.
WATT, C.J., KAUGER and WINCHESTER, JJ., CONCUR IN RESULT.
¶ 1 I agree with the majority that, under the facts presented, the district court lacked authority to issue a contempt citation. Nevertheless, the order should not be read to prohibit the review, by the judicial branch, of all acts which a state agency may characterize as "discretionary". I would assume jurisdiction and explain to the trial courts how the duly adopted Detention and Disposition Guidelines for Juvenile Court Judges, No. SCAD-96-3 (July 8, 1996) (Guidelines) may be applied without violating separation of powers principles. I would also afford the appellant, Office of Juvenile Affairs (Juvenile Affairs), an opportunity to demonstrate how, through the implementation of the Guidelines, trial courts may compromise Juvenile Affairs' ability to qualify for grants from the United States Department of Justice. An examination of this issue might well require a reconsideration by the Legislature or this Court, through an amendment of the Guidelines, to help avoid the loss of funds necessary for the operation of state programs.
See, Footnote #1, Brief in Support of Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition, filed on March 5, 2004, providing:
"In addition to possible fines and the incarceration of its employees, the Office of Juvenile Affairs receives more than Three Million Dollars each year in grants from the United States Department of Justice which funds are used for juvenile delinquency programs across the state. One of the conditions of receipt of these funds is the removal of children from adult jails and lockups and the separation of juvenile offenders and incarcerated adults. See 28 C.F.R. § 31.303-04."