City court could face backlash
By M. Scott Carter
[ SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 - OKLAHOMA CITY ] – Oklahoma City’s municipal court could be forced to retry more than 100 cases and, possibly, refund thousands of dollars in fines after a state appellate court overturned a Del City woman’s conviction for harboring a dangerous animal.
The issue revolves around how city officials notify residents charged with dangerous dog offenses.
Sheila Ingram, 48, was given two citations and subsequently convicted in municipal court for harboring a dangerous animal. Ingram appealed the conviction and the $1,000 fine to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, saying she was not properly notified about her arraignment and trial.
Ingram’s notice, Oklahoma City attorney Robert Groshon said, was flawed.
“Sheila went there expecting to be arraigned and instead, she was tried,” Groshon said. “She wasn’t prepared. She walks in and they say, ‘You are going to trial.’”
The state Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Ingram. In a 5-0 ruling issued Sept. 14, the court said Ingram had been denied due process because she had not been properly notified about her arraignment and trial date.
Kenneth Jordan, who represented Oklahoma City for the appeal, argued Ingram’s case should be dismissed because there were no trail records or transcript.
“There is nothing for the court to review,” Jordan wrote in a brief to the court. “Based on the Appellant’s failure to ensure a complete record and in the interest of judicial economy, the Appellee would assert that the Appellant has waived his right to appeal and respectfully asks this court to dismiss this appeal.”
Nothing doing, Judge David B. Lewis said in the appellate court’s written opinion, which held that Ingram signed the original police citations indicating her first appearance would be for an arraignment.
“By signing these forms Appellant did not waive her right to an arraignment nor her opportunity to enter a formal plea,” Lewis said. “Because the record does not reflect that Appellant was given adequate notice of trial or that she ever waived such notice, Appellant’s conviction must be reversed for further proceedings.”
Municipal attorney Cindy Richard confirmed that Ingram was notified using the normal procedure for residents charged with harboring dangerous animals.
“I’ve been here at least 20 years and that’s the way we’ve done it,” she said.
Richard said dangerous animal trials are expedited because the city is holding the animal at the time of the trial.
“Most people don’t want their dogs held,” she said.
Although city officials said they are changing the way residents are notified, some legal experts said the ruling might become a headache for the municipal court.
“It could be a nightmare,” said Oklahoma City attorney Bob Sheets. “I could see where it (the ruling) would be a major burden for them.”
Residents convicted of dangerous animal charges have a strong case for the appellate court, he said, but only if they proceed fast enough.
“There is this decision from the court that says if you have the same type of notice it’s defective,” Sheets said. “But it would depend on whether or not that person was within the time allowed for the appeal.”
In some cases, Sheets said, that window could be only 30 days long.
Ingram’s case is set for a retrial Sept. 19.
Ingram: Fight over dogs isn’t over
Shelia Ingram was only trying to help.
Two years ago, Ingram’s niece asked her to watch two puppies – Rufus and Patches. The dogs, Ingram said, were young, skittish and easily frightened.
“I’m actually very afraid of dogs,” Ingram said. “But these were mixed-breed puppies. They were little puppies. They ran from me, they ran from the children, they ran from the meter readers.”
Her neighbors claimed the puppies were vicious.
On Nov. 7, 2009, Ingram was charged with harboring a vicious animal and the puppies were taken to the Oklahoma City Animal Shelter. A few days later, Ingram received a notice from Oklahoma City municipal court that included the notation, “November 30 (at) 2 p.m., Courtroom 3.”
Appellate judges later confirmed there was nothing to show what was to happen in court that day. Ingram went, expecting to be arraigned, but was instead tried and convicted of harboring a vicious animal by municipal judge Fred Austin. She was fined $1,000.
“I wasn’t prepared,” she said. “There was nothing on the information that said what the date meant. The city was prepared; I was just standing there.”
Ingram said she told Austin she was not ready for a court date and that she didn’t have an attorney.
“I wasn’t fully aware of what was going on,” she said. “We didn’t know who to ask for help.”
Telephone calls from The Journal Record to Austin’s office were not returned. Stacey Davis, director of Oklahoma City’s municipal court system, said Austin doesn’t speak with anyone except attorneys.
Ingram said Austin wouldn’t answer her questions during the hearing.
“I tried to talk to him and he threw me out of court,” she said. “I was mistreated. He had the sheriff escort me out.”
After that, Ingram said she got mad. Saying she’d been denied her civil rights, she filed a pro se notice of appeal shortly after her trial.
“I thought, ‘This is not right,’” Ingram said. “I knew I needed to find help. I knew I needed to stand up and do something.”
Ingram’s appeal, developed with the help of Oklahoma City attorney Robert Groshon, went before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. On Sept. 14, the court ruled that Ingram had not been properly notified and ordered a new trial.
Yet even with her victory in appellate court, Rufus and Patches remain in the city’s animal shelter, and Ingram’s fight isn’t over.
With a new trial set for Sept. 19, she returns to municipal court in an attempt to get her conviction overturned and her money – and her dogs – back.
“Now I believe in the system,” she said. “Earlier I had started not to believe. But I found some people really do want people to have a fair chance. I would understand being convicted if I had done this, but I didn’t. I just don’t like it when people use the law to try and scare others.”