2014 OKCR 3 - LOCKETT v. STATE

¶1ORDER DENYING STAYS OF EXECUTION

¶2T1 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has again transferred to this Court a joint request for stay of execution filed in connection with a civil appeal involving Appellants currently pending before that Court. Lockett, et al. v. Evans, et al., Case No. 112,741 (April 11, 2014). The recent procedural history of this case is lengthy and requires repeating for clarity. This Court set execution dates in January 2014 for Lockett and Warner after both death row inmates had exhausted their state and federal appeals.1 Both sought and were denied executive clemency from the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. On February 26, 2014, Lockett and Warner filed *756a civil declaratory judgment action in the District Court of Oklahoma County against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC). Lockett, et al. v. Evans, et al., Case No. CV-2014-330. That lawsuit challenged, among other things, the constitutionality of the confidentiality provision in 22 0.9.2011, § 1015(B)2 The complaint was accompanied by a motion for injunctive relief seeking a stay of their respective executions. Because the complaint challenged § 1015(B) on both state and federal grounds, ODOC removed the case to federal court. Appellants amended their complaint, deleting all federal constitutional claims, and the federal district court declined jurisdiction and remanded the ease back to state court. Appellants filed an amended complaint along with their motion for stay of execution. The Honorable Patricia G. Parrish of the District Court of Oklahoma County held a hearing on March 10, 2014, and denied Appellants' request for stay of execution, finding that "jurisdiction for such matters properly lies with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals." Judge Parrish did not otherwise rule on the declaratory judgment action.

¶312 On March 11, 2014, Appellants filed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court a petition in error and designation of record to initiate an appeal of Judge Parrish's ruling denying the requested stay of execution. See Lockett, et al. v. Evans, et al., Case No. 112,639. Appellants also filed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court an "Emergency Application for Stay of Execution Pending Outcome of Appeal." The next day ODOC filed a response in opposition to Appellants' motion for stay of execution. On March 18, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Judge Parrish had

¶4jurisdiction to hear the merits of Appellants' declaratory judgment action. That Court declined, however, to grant a stay of execution, citing Maynard v. Layden, 1992 OK CR 31, 830 P.2d 581,3 and transferred to this Court Plaintiffs' Emergency Application for Stay of Execution Pending Outcome of Appeal. That same day, this Court directed briefs from the parties addressing the applicability of Malicoat v. State4 and 22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1 to the application for stay. In the supplemental briefing, the State announced its inability to procure the necessary execution drugs for the impending executions. Based on the State's revelation that it lacked execution drugs and could not obtain them, this Court on March 18, 2014 vacated Lock-ett's and Warner's execution dates and reset them.5 On March 26, 2014, Judge Parrish ruled from the bench that the portion of § 1015(B) making confidential the identity of execution participants and those who supply the execution drugs violated Appellants' state constitutional right to access to the courts.6 A written order memorializing Judge Parrish's ruling was entered on April 1, 2014. Appellants filed in this Court an application for stay of execution on April 7, 2014, but did not file an action challenging their convictions, death sentences or the constitutionality of the execution protocol. The State filed a response that same day, attesting that ODOC had the necessary drugs to lawfully carry out Appellants' scheduled executions and had advised Appellants of ODOC's newly adopted execution protocol. This Court denied Appellants' request for stay of execution on April 9, 2014, on the basis that we had no authority to enter a stay under 22 0.S8.2011, § 1001.1(C) because there was no pending *757case in this Court. With their executions approaching and their request for stay of execution denied by this Court, Appellants filed on April 11, 2014, an application for stay of execution in the Oklahoma Supreme Court in connection with their appeal of Judge Parrish's adverse ruling of March 26, 2014.7 The State filed a response. The Oklahoma Supreme Court transferred the application for stay of execution to this Court on April 17, 2014 to decide whether a stay of execution should be issued pending the resolution of Appellants' civil appeal before the Supreme Court.8 The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction of Appellants' appeal of Judge Parrish's adverse ruling.

¶513 The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in erimi-nal cases and may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be conferred by statute. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4; 20 0.8. 2011, § 40. Our authority to grant a stay of execution is limited by 22 O0.S8.2011, § 1001.1(C).9 The language of § 1001.1(C) is clear. This Court may grant a stay of execution only when: (1) there is an action pending in this Court; (2) the action challenges the death row inmate's conviction or death sentence; and (8) the death row inmate makes the requisite showings of likely sue cess and irreparable harm. The Supreme Court's opinion transferring Appellants' application for stay of execution finds that this Court "ignored" subsections (D),10 (E),11 and (F)12 of § 1001.1 in denying Appellants April 7th application for stay of execution filed in this Court. We respectfully disagree *758based on rules of statutory construction. The primary task in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Johnson v. State, 2013 OK CR 12, ¶ 10, 308 P.3d 1053,1055; Starkey v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, ¶ 34, 305 P.3d 1004, 1017. To discern that intent, we look first to the language of the statute itself, giving the statutory terms their commonly accepted and understood meaning. Johnson, 2013 OK CR 12, ¶ 10, 308 P.3d at 1055; W.R. Allison Enterprises, Inc. v. CompSource Oklahoma, 2013 OK 24, ¶ 15, 301 P.3d 407, 411-412 (citing State ex rel. Oklahoma State Dept. of Health v. Robertson, 2006 OK 99, ¶ 6, 152 P.3d 875, 877-78). In construing statutory provisions, specific provisions govern over general ones. See State v. Hall, 2008 OK CR 15, ¶ 29, 185 P.3d 397, 404 (citing Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶¶ 17-18, 932 P.2d 22, 28-29); Jones v. State ex rel. Office of Juvenile Affairs, 2011 OK 105, ¶ 14, 268 P.3d 72, 76.

¶614 It is evident from the plain language of § 1001.1 that the Legislature pre-seribed this Court's authority to grant stays of execution in Subsection (C). Although Subsections (D), (E), and (F) refer to stays of execution issued by "any state or federal court," these subsections do not specify the conditions under which "any state or federal court" may grant a stay, nor do they specifically vest authority to do so. These subsections identify this Court by name and task us with setting execution dates upon the dissolution or vacation of stays issued by other state or federal courts. Subsection (C) vests authority in this Court to grant stays of execution and prescribes the conditions under which we may do so. It is controlling. While the Oklahoma Supreme Court has authority to deem an issue civil and so within its jurisdiction, it does not have the power to supersede a statute and manufacture jurisdiction in this Court for Appellants' stay request by merely transferring it here. Therefore, Appellants' application for stays of execution is DENIED.

¶7{ 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

¶816 WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 18th day of April, 2014.

DAVID LEWIS, Presiding Judge, CLANCY SMITH, Viee Presiding Judge, GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge, CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge, and ARLENE JOHNSON, Judge: concur.

¶9. Lockett's original execution date was set for March 20, 2014 and Warner's original execution date was set for March 27, 2014.

¶10. The confidentiality provision of § 1015(B) states: ''The identity of all persons who participate in or administer the execution process and persons who supply the drugs, medical supplies or medical equipment for the execution shall be confidential and shall not be subject to discovery in any civil or criminal proceedings."

¶11. In Layden, this Court referenced an Oklahoma Supreme Court order that denied a death row inmate's application to assume original jurisdiction and petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus because "the punishment, and the amount thereof, is an essential part of the judgment in a criminal case and that the carrying out, prohibiting, or staying such a judgment is within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of [the Court of Criminal Appeals]." Layden, at ¶ 3, 830 P.2d at 582. Layden dealt with statutes (22 O.S. 1991, §§ 1012 & 1013) that have been repealed but the rule enunciated above remains valid.

¶12. 2006 OK CR 25, 137 P.3d 1234.

¶13. Lockett's execution date is set for April 22, 2014 and Warner's execution date is set for April 29, 2014.

¶14. - Judge Parrish denied the balance of Appellants' claims in the amended petition.

¶15. Appellants appeal Judge Parrish's rulings that (1) Section 1014 of Title 22 is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority; and (2) the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act was not violated by ODOC when it enacted its new execution protocol. The State filed its petition in error appealing Judge Parrish's ruling finding 22 0.$.2011, § 1015(B) unconstitutional on April 18, 2014.

¶16. The Supreme Court's opinion urges us "to be cognizant of the time restraints associated with the submission of the appeal(s) to this Court along with the gravity of the first impression constitutional issues this Court will be charged with in addressing the civil appeal, or appeals." Lockett et al. v. Evans et al., 2014 OK 28, ¶ 4, _ P.3d _. ODOC has furnished Appellants with the names, dosages and expiration dates of the three drugs it will use for execution. Armed with this information, Appellants have failed to challenge the new protocol on Eighth Amendment grounds and insist only that the identities of the drug suppliers and manufacturers may lead to a basis to challenge their death sentences.

¶17. Section 1001.1(C) states:

When an action challenging the conviction or sentence of death is pending before it, the Court of Criminal Appeals may stay an execution date, or issue any order which effectively stays an execution date only upon a showing by the defendant that there exists a significant possibility of reversal of the defendant's conviction, or vacation of the defendant's sentence, and that irreparable harm will result if no stay is issued.

¶18. Section D provides:

Should a stay of execution be issued by any state or federal court, a new execution date shall be set by operation of law sixty (60) days after the dissolution of the stay of execution. The new execution date shall be set by the Court of Criminal Appeals without necessity of application by the state, but the Attorney General, on behalf of the state, shall bring to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeals the fact of the dissolution of a stay of execution and suggest the appropriateness of the setting of a new execution date.

¶19. Section E provides:

After an execution date has been set pursuant to the provisions of this section, should a stay of execution be issued by any state or federal court, a new execution date shall be set by operation of law thirty (30) days after the dissolution of the stay of execution. The new execution date shall be set by the Court of Criminal Appeals without necessity of application by the state, but the Attorney General, on behalf of the state, shall bring to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeals the fact of the dissolution of a stay of execution and suggest the appropriateness of setting a new execution date.

¶20. Section F provides:

After an execution date has been set pursuant to the provisions of this section, should a stay of execution be issued by any state or federal court and then vacated by such court, the sentence of death shall be carried out as ordered prior to the issuance of such vacated stay of execution. If the prior execution date has expired prior to the vacation of the stay of execution, a new execution date shall be set by operation of law thirty (30) days after the vacation of the stay of execution. The new execution date shall be set by the Court of Criminal Appeals without necessity of application by the state, but the Attorney General, on behalf of the state, shall bring to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeals the fact of a vacation of the stay of execution and suggest the appropriateness of the setting of a new execution date.