Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rideout v. Wynn
Citations: 987 P.2d 446; 1999 OK CIV APP 80; 70 O.B.A.J. 2497; 1999 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 85; 1999 WL 558118Docket: No. 90,665
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma; June 22, 1999; Oklahoma; State Appellate Court
An appeal was initiated by inmate José Rideout on September 3, 1996, against the Pittsburg County district attorney, seeking a court order to file charges against certain officials at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. Rideout alleged assault, battery, kidnapping, and robbery related to the non-consensual collection of his DNA. On April 4, 1997, the district court denied his request for a writ of mandamus, stating he was not entitled to compel the district attorney to prosecute the officials. Rideout's subsequent motion for reconsideration, filed May 5, 1997, was also denied on May 9, 1997. Although he attempted to appeal the minute order, the Oklahoma Supreme Court permitted an appeal following the entry of a memorialized judgment on the reconsideration motion. The appellate review highlighted that Rideout’s motion to reconsider was filed more than ten days after the original judgment, rendering it ineffective to extend the appeal period and qualifying it as a term-time motion to vacate. The appellate court evaluated whether the trial court acted with sound discretion in denying this motion. It confirmed that the decision to prosecute lies within the executive branch, affirming the principle that courts cannot control the exercise of executive power through mandamus or similar writs. The court reiterated that while a writ of mandamus may compel an executive officer to make a decision, it cannot dictate the manner of that decision or review the discretionary actions of the officer. The trial court's denial of Rideout's motion was thus upheld as a proper exercise of discretion. The supreme court has ruled against using mandamus to control an executive officer endowed with discretion in initiating legal actions. In *Partridge v. Shore*, the court reversed a mandamus order compelling a county attorney to pursue legal action, emphasizing that the attorney has the discretion to determine both the legality and public policy implications of such actions. Similarly, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reinforced that the decision to prosecute and the specific charges filed are at the sole discretion of the prosecutor, indicating that district courts generally cannot interfere with this discretion unless expressly authorized. In the present case, the Pittsburg County district attorney evaluated the facts regarding Prisoner Rideout's complaint and chose not to file the requested criminal charges, exercising the discretion granted to him. Since the district attorney acted and made a decision, there was no justification for mandamus to dictate further action or alter the decision made. The trial court's denial of a motion to reconsider its refusal to mandate action by the district attorney was deemed not to constitute an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's order. Additionally, the district attorney interpreted relevant statutory law as permitting Department of Corrections officials to collect blood samples from Prisoner Rideout for DNA purposes, as defined by law, which anticipates the Department acting as an agent for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation in this matter.