PANAMA ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOM, FILED
REME COURT,
‘THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF OKLAH
By and through JOHN M. O°CONNOR, NOV 10 2021
ATTORNEY GENERAL Sonn aneen
Petitioner, CLERK
Case No. 119,929
v.
ADAM LUCK, INDIVIDUALLY AS
‘A MEMBER OF THE OKLAHOMA
PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD,
&
KELLY DOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY
AS A MEMBER OF THE OKLAHOMA.
PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD,
Respondents.
RESPONDENT KELLY DOYLE’S REQUEST THAT THE COURT SANCTION
PETITIONER PURSUANT TO OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.191(j)
Kevin P. Doyle
Pray Walker, P.C.
ene RECEIVED
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
(918) 581-5516 uv tn 2021
(918) 581-5599 (facsimile) .
[email protected] CLERK'S OFFICE
Attomey for Respondent Kelly Doyle,
A member of the State of Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board
November 10, 2021
{00365745 0004/2)DEX
QUESTION
Whether the Court should sanction Petitioner, the Oklahoma Attorney General, pursuant to
Okla. Sup.Ct.R 1.191)
Cases
David Prater, District Attorney for the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner v. Adam Luck,
individually as a member of the Pardon and Parole Board: and Kelly Doyle, individually
as a member of the Pardon and Parole Board, Oklahoma Supreme Court Case No.
119,839 (“Prater v. Doyle”).
Frazier v. Bruce, 2021 OK 14, 484 P.3d 285,
Statutes
120.8. § 995
57 OS. §332.15
Rules
Okla.Sup.CtR 1.191()..
Okla. Sup.CtR 1.191G
Constitutional Provisions
Okla, Const, Art VI, See 10
‘TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...
Il. PETITIONER KNEW HIS APPLICATION WAS UNTIMELY WHEN IT
WAS FILED AND HE FAILED TO ARGUE ANY BASIS AUTHORIZED
UNDER OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.191(1) TO EXCUSE THE.
UNTIMELY FILING... mn
Il, PETITIONER FAILED TO INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATE THE
ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING HIS APPLICATION - IT ASSERTED
CLAIMS AGAINST THE SAME PARTIES, WAS BASED UPON THE,
SAME ARGUMENTS AS THOSE USED IN PRATER ¥. DOYLE, DECIDED
BY THIS COURT'S ORDER ON OCTOBER 18, 2021...
IV. THE PURPOSE FOR THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION WAS TO DELAY
AND DISRUPT THE PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD PROCEEDINGS. THE
PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD AND ITS PROCESSES ARE AUTHORIZED
BY THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION.
(0360745 DCX /2} 2V.- AUTHORITY w.sssnnsttnnnnnnnninnnnnisinnnnnnnne
VI. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
(00369745 BOCK 2)IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
By and through JOHN M. O°CONNOR,
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner,
Case No. 119,929
ADAM LUCK, INDIVIDUALLY AS.
A MEMBER OF THE OKLAHOMA
PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD,
&
KELLY DOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY
AS A MEMBER OF THE OKLAHOMA
PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD,
Respondents,
RESPONDENT KELLY DOYLE’S REQUEST THAT THE COURT SANCTION
PETITIONER PURSUANT TO OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.191()
Respondent Kelly Doyle requests that this Court utilize its discretion pursuant to
Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.191(j) and sanction Petitioner, Atomey General John
0°Connor.
1. INTRODUCTION
This Court may sanction a party for filing a frivolous application seeking to invoke the
Court’s original jurisdiction. Okla.Sup.Ct.R 1.191@). Petitioner had no good faith basis for
filing his untimely Application secking to disqualify Respondent Doyle from participating in
the Pardon and Parole Board proceedings involving Julius Jones. Despite the untimeliness of
his Application, Petitioner moved forward with borrowed arguments and supporting
documents from David Prater, District Attorney for the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner v.
{o0s6o745 DOC 2} 4Adam Luck, individually as a member of the Pardon and Parole Board; and Kelly Doyle,
individually as a member of the Pardon and Parole Board, Oklahoma Supreme Court Case
No. 119,839 (“Prater v. Doyle") a case seeking identical relief against the same Respondents.
Prater v. Doyle was decided by this Court the same day Petitioner filed his Application. The
Petitioner admits his Application was untimely yet Respondent Doyle was forced to respond
to another attempt to destroy her reputation. In his Application Petitioner attacked Respondent
Doyle in an attempt to remake the Pardon and Parole Board and interfere with the outcome of
the Pardon and Parole Board proceedings. Frivolous steps beyond the bounds of legitimate
advocacy by any Petitioner, more so when initiated by an official vested with the authority and
responsibility of the Oklahoma Attorney General
IL PETITIONER KNEW HIS APPLICATION WAS UNTIMELY WHEN IT
WAS FILED AND HE FAILED TO ARGUE ANY BASIS AUTHORIZED
UNDER OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.191(i) TO EXCUSE
THE UNTIMELY FILING.
A. Petitioner’s application was untimely.
Applications requesting that this Court assume original jurisdiction must be filed with
the clerk of this Court at least ten (10) days prior to the date the cause is set for heating.
Ofla.Sup.CL.R 1.191(). In this instance, as of the date Petitioner filed his Application the
Pardon and Parole Board hearing involving Julius Jones was set for hearing on October 26,
2021. The Application was filed on October 18, 2021. Petitioner admits his Application was
untimely when filed. See, Petitioner's Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction (Case No.
119,929), page 6.
(00369745 DOC 2} 5B. Petitioner offers no argument that the grounds for relief were not known
or could not be discovered prior to the ten (10) day filing deadline
established by Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.191().
Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 1.191(i) an untimely filing can be excused if a petitioner
“alleges and shows that asserted grounds for relief were not known, ot could not reasonably
have been discovered, prior to the ten-day period.” OklaSup.CtR 1.191(i). Given his
participation in the Julius Jones proceedings leading up to the Application and having
borrowed from the Oklahoma County District Attomey’s pleadings, the Petitioner could not
allege he didn’t know or could not have discovered the grounds for his Application to permit
a timely filing. Any circumstances that would have given rise to the only exception to the ten
(10) day filing requirement were not offered.
C.Petitioner’s untimely Application is not made timely through the actions
of Julius Jones.
A flawed and untimely filing is not remedied by circumstances unrelated to the
Petitioner’s initial failure to comply with this Court's rules. While acknowledging the
‘Application is untimely, Petitioner argues that his untimeliness may ultimately be remedied if
the Julius Jones hearing before the Pardon Parole Board is delayed. See, Petitioner's
Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction (Case No. 119,929), page 6-10. In an ironic twist,
the Petitioner argues that his untimely Application could be transformed into a timely
Application if Julius Jones’ continued his efforts to avoid execution - which may then delay
the Pardon and Parole Board hearing, make Petitioner’s Application timely, give Petitioner the
‘opportunity to remake the Pardon and Parole Board, and move forward with Julius Jones’
execution. The argument was frivolous and the Application untimely.
(00369745 DOC 2} 6mw.
PETITIONER FAILED TO INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATE THE
ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING HIS APPLICATION - IT ASSERTED
CLAIMS AGAINST THE SAME PARTIES, WAS BASED UPON THE
SAME ARGUMENTS AS THOSE USED IN PRATER V. DOYLE,
DECIDED BY THIS COURT’S ORDER ON OCTOBER 18, 2021.
Without independent investigation the Petitioner filed his Application using the same
allegations, investigation, and arguments offered by District Attomey Prater in Prater v. Doyle,
Petitioner admits this fact
In candor, the documents in the appendices were provided to the undersigned
by District Attorney David Prater. ‘Thus, Petitioner did not have to conduct the
investigation that led to the evidence. The undersigned also borrowed from Mr.
Prater’s motions, which saved some time. However, it was still necessary to
review the appendices, make independent judgments about what to include and
how to argue it, and to prepare the requests with the new evidence obtained
since Mr. Prater filed his application in this Court.
See, Petitioner's Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction, pp. 8-9, Footnote 3. Petitioner
conducted an “independent investigation” of the box of documents the Oklahoma County
District Attomey provide him. Distriet Attorney Prater defined the limits of the investigation
(the box of documents provided to Petitioner) and Petitioner stayed within that box. Petitioner
‘was not being independent, he was being dependent - which is a better explanation for why he
filed the Application.
W.
THE PURPOSE FOR THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION WAS TO
DELAY AND DISRUPT THE PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD
PROCEEDINGS. THE PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD AND ITS
PROCESSES ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE OKLAHOMA
CONSTITUTION.
Petitioner attempted to interfere with the Pardon and Parole Boatd proceedings by putting
forth frivolous arguments designed to create a method and basis for disqualification which is not
permitted by the Oklahoma Constitution or Oklahoma Statutes. The Oklahoma Constitution and
{00369745 DOC 2} 7Oklahoma Statutes address the qualifications and grounds for removal and disqualification of
Board members and neither authorize the use of this Court’s original jurisdiction to remove or
disqualify a Pardon and Parole Board member under the circumstances alleged by the Petitioner.
The Oklahoma Constitution, Article VI, Section 10 specifically provides when a Pardon and
Parole Board member must refrain from acting. Attorney Board members are prohibited from
representing persons charged with felony offenses. Okla, Const. Art VI, Sec 10. The Oklahoma
Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, further provides that “appointed members shall hold their
offices coterminous with that of the Governor and shall be removable for cause only in the manner
provided by law for elective officers not liable to impeachment.” Okla. Const. Art VI, See 10. The
Constitution does not include prohibitions limiting Respondent Doyle's employment activities
and does not require that she refrain from acting as a member of the Board.
‘The Oklahoma legislature specifically identifies the only grounds for disqualifying Board
members.
From and after the effective date of this act, no member of the Pardon and Parole
Board and/or their Jaw firm or law partners or associate may represent in a legal
capacity any inmate incarcerated in any state penal institution. If a member of the
Pardon and Parole Board, or his law partners or associate or any member of his law
firm undertakes the representation of an inmate in violation of this prohibition the
‘member of the Board shall forfeit his office. In any case in which an inmate requesting
‘a pardon or parole was represented in a legal capacity by any member of the Pardon
and Parole Board and/or their law firm or law partners or associate prior to imposition
of aprison term, the Board member who represented such inmate shall be disqualified
from voting on such inmate's request for a pardon or parole.
57 OS. $332.15. The legislature has established the grounds for disqualification. Those grounds
are inapplicable to Respondent Doyle.
V. AUTHORITY
This Court’s Rule 1.191(j) provides as follows:
Sanctions.
{00369785 DOCK /2} 8Sanetions for the filing of a frivolous application to invoke this Court's
extraordinary powers to issue original jurisdiction writs may be invoked against the
party filing such proceeding in favor of the party required to defend against it (including
a real party in interest). Sanctions may include an award of costs and attorney's fees.
A frivolous proceeding may include one brought for the sole purpose of delay
or to disrupt the proceeding in the court below or a proceeding so obviously without,
any merit as to impute bad faith on the party bringing the action. Where the filing of
such proceeding is in good faith, sanctions will not be imposed. See 12 OS. § 995.
Okla. Sup.CtR 1.1914).
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has applied Rule 1.191 (j), and determined that an award
of attorney fees was warranted when a plaintiff invoked this Court’s original jurisdiction
seeking the disqualification of a judge. Frazier sought disqualification of the judge under Rule
15, arguing the continuance was unauthorized by law and established the appearance of
impropriety. Frazier v, Bruce, 2021 OK 14, 484 P.3d 285. Denying the petition for
disqualification, this Court noted that the “Ms. Frazier’s basis for the disqualification was
completely insufficient.” Id. This Court also held that “[A] filing seeking to invoke this Counts
original jurisdiction to disqualify a judge where the sole basis for disqualification has been
routinely rejected by this Court amounts to a frivolous filing.” Id. (citing to Okla.Sup.Ct.R,
1.191().
VI. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Respondent Doyle requests that this Court exercise its discretion and sanction
Petitioner for filing a frivolous Application. Okla Sup.C1.R. 1.191(). Petitioner not only knew
this matter was untimely when it was filed, Petitioner fails to allege any basis authorized under
Rule 1.191(j) as an exception to an untimely filing, Petitioner borrowed the arguments and the
supporting Appendices from the petitioner in Prater v. Doyle, failed to independently
00369745 DOCK /2} 9investigate the allegations against Respondent Doyle, and recklessly presented to them to this,
Court, Finally, Petitioner's Application was an attempt to remove a Pardon and Parole Board
member with total disregard for the Constitutional and statutory grounds for addressing a
Board member's qualifications and removal.
Respondent Doyle requests that this Court sanction Petitioner and that the sanctions
include awarding Respondent Doyle the costs and attorney’s fees associated with responding
to Petitioner's Application and submitting this request for sanctions. Should the Court grant
Respondent Doyle’s request for sanctions and award attorney's fees, Respondent Doyle will,
at the direction of the Court, submit her fees and expenses for consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Kevin P. Doyle, OBY7#13269
PRAY WALKERA.C.
100 West Fifth Street, Suite 900
‘Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4292
Tel: (918) 581-5516
Fax: (918) 581-5591
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Respondent Kelly Doyle
(0369745 DOCK /2} 10CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
| certify that a true and correct copy of this Response was mailed this 10th day of
ting it in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, (ii) facsimile, or (iii)
David A. Cincotta Mark Barrett
Attomey & Counselor at Law Local Counsel for Julius Jones
Cincotta Law Office, PLLC LILN. Peters
3422 NW 135th Street Norman, Oklahoma 73070
Oklahoma City, OK 73120 [email protected][email protected]
Jennifer L. Crabb
Evan B. Gatewood Assistant Attorney General
Hayes, Magrini, & Gatewood 313 NE 2Ist Street
1220 N. Walker Ave. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 Jennifer. Crabb @oag.ok gov
[email protected]
Michael W. Lieberman
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Capital Habeas Unit
Federal Public Defender, District of Arizona
850 West Adams Street, Room 201
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Michael [email protected]
(00365748 DOCK /2} u