OKLAHOMA CITY – A recent state law meant to provide some abuse victims sentencing relief in criminal cases may need tweaking, two of the measure’s authors said.
Former House Majority Leader Jon Echols, R-Oklahoma City, and Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Del City, said a recent Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling highlights potential loopholes in the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act in its utilization by inmates and interpretation by judges.
The law allows judges to give criminal defendants who are domestic violence victims lighter sentences if they can prove prior abuse contributed to the crime.
A 41-year-old offender appealed for relief under the law, alleging that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and mental health issues from time spent in group homes and foster care as a child, according to court records. He alleged there was a connection between his PTSD and the crimes.
The man said his 20-year concurrent sentences were excessive, according to court records.
The man is serving time at Northeastern Oklahoma Community Corrections Center in Vinita for escaping from a penal institution and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
A Grant County district judge found the man might qualify for relief under the law created by Senate Bill 1835, which took effect in August 2024. He ordered the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System to represent the offender in his quest for a sentence reduction.
Jamie Pybas, Oklahoma Indigent Defense System executive director, appealed the order, arguing that state law prohibits their attorneys from being appointed to represent individuals appealing non-death penalty cases.
The state’s high court agreed, finding that while the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act allows judges to appoint an attorney to represent those seeking relief under the act, it does not specifically require representation through the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court also found that the district court judge lacked the authority to appoint the indigent defense system to represent the man.
“If the Legislature desires OIDS to provide representation in such cases, the Legislature may amend the Indigent Defense Act to include the Survivors’ Act proceedings within OIDS’s scope of representation,” the order said.
Echols, one of the bill’s authors, said the man’s request for sentencing relief was an “absurd” abuse of the act. He said it was offensive to real survivors of domestic violence.
“There are real victims that need this,” Echols said.
Echols said there must be a nexus between the crime and the abuse, and the law was meant to apply in situations where an abuse victim was defending themselves or when a victim of human trafficking stole a vehicle to escape.
“Rarely do we pass something on the first attempt that covers all of the bases,” said Fugate, another of the measure’s authors.
Fugate said as lawmakers discover loopholes in their legislation, they often go back and fix them.
“It sounds like we may need to do some tweaking,” Fugate said.
Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed the original bill, Senate Bill 1470. The Senate overrode the veto.
But lawmakers ultimately decided to send Stitt a revised bill, which he signed.
Prosecutors said they were concerned about loopholes and potential for abuse by criminal defendants.
Although sold as a shield to protect victims, Stitt wrote in his veto message that the bill would create a sword by which criminal defendants will fight the imposition of justice.
Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler said he is in favor of the new law as it was written, but has concerns it could be subject to abuse.
“This guy’s ability to get this far in the process is pretty shocking,” he said of the 41-year-old inmate.
A recent Tulsa County case in which sentencing relief was denied cost his office $11,000 for an expert witness, Kunzweiler said. He said the law created an unfunded mandate for his office.
He said the law could be cleaned up to make it more clear.
Kyle Cabelka, district attorney for Comanche and Cotton counties and chair of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council, said although lawmakers made positive changes to the law, it is still overly broad.
“I think that the language could be changed in a way that would at least give everybody more guidance,” he said.
