 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Woodward v. Morrisey11/19/1999
668, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978), the Supreme Court stated:
the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation so long as the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification.
Nor do we find such selectivity in itself to be a state constitutional violation. Limits on this discretion exist by virtue of the statutory schemes governing criminal law as well as those governing the practice of law.
Romano, 1993 OK CR 8, 114-115, 847 P.2d at 393 (bracketed material in original). "Prosecutors are presumed by law to act in good faith when determining which crimes to prosecute and which punishments to seek." Id. It is Petitioner's responsibility to establish that the State's prosecution of him is based upon some impermissible discriminatory grounds. Id. at 116, 847 P.2d at 393. Petitioner's application contains no evidence that he is being denied entry into Drug Court based upon any discriminatory ground. He is simply unhappy that the District Attorney has denied his request for admission to the program. Petitioner's claim is without merit.
Petitioner also alleges he is being denied access to the courts in violation of Article II, § 6, of the Oklahoma Constitution. While Petitioner has a constitutional right to a jury trial (Okla. Const. art. II, § 19), nowhere does Petitioner provide authority for his claim that he has a statutory or constitutional right to plea bargain or to be accepted into a rehabilitation program in lieu of being criminally prosecuted for a crime. The mere existence and availability of the program, in and of itself, is insufficient to support Petitioner's claim that he should be allowed into the program over the District Attorney's objection.
Petitioner has not established that he has a clear legal right to the relief sought. He is unable to provide this Court with any persuasive or controlling authority supporting his position that the lack of judicial review of the State's exercise of its discretion with regard to rejection of Drug Court applications is either unconstitutional or requires this Court's intervention. Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to extraordinary relief.
Petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus is therefore DENIED, as is his request for a writ of prohibition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 19th day of November, 1999.
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Presiding Judge
GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge
CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge
CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge
STEVE LILE, Judge
ATTEST:
James Patterson, Clerk
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|