HORVAT v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

Annotate this Case

HORVAT v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
2004 OK CIV APP 59
95 P.3d 190
Case Number: 99976
Decided: 04/13/2004
Mandate Issued: 07/02/2004
DIVISION II
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION II

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION BY THE SUPREME COURT

SHAWN M. HORVAT, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. the MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSION, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT Of TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

HONORABLE GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, TRIAL JUDGE

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Stanley M. Ward, Woodrow K. Glass, Scott F. Brockman, WARD & GLASS, LLP, Norman, Oklahoma, for Appellant
Honorable Drew Edmondson, ATTORNEY GENERAL, William F. O'Brien, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission
Michael T. Oakley, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee Oklahoma Department of Corrections

TOM COLBERT, CHIEF JUDGE:

¶1 Shawn M. Horvat, an employee of the Department of Corrections (DOC), appeals from a summary judgment in favor of DOC and the Merit Protection Commission (MPC). The issue on appeal is whether MPC's rule that an appeal is filed on the day it is received rather than on the day it is mailed violates Oklahoma's Constitution. We conclude that it does and reverse the summary judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On September 20, 2002, Horvat, a permanent classified Correctional Security Manager, Level 1, received a letter from DOC informing him that he was to be involuntarily demoted and transferred on October 1, 2002. On October 9, 2002, Horvat sent a Notice of Appeal to MPC by certified mail. MPC received the notice on October 11, 2002, and dismissed the appeal as untimely. MPC also denied Horvat's petition for rehearing on December 13, 2002.

¶3 Horvat filed a petition with the district court against MPC and DOC, seeking judicial review of MPC's denial. He subsequently filed an amended petition to seek a declaratory judgment that MPC's rule violated Oklahoma's Constitution. Horvat then moved for summary judgment. The district court denied his motion and granted summary judgment in favor of MPC and DOC. Horvat appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶4 The question presented on appeal is one of law which we review de novo. K&H Well Serv., Inc. v. Tcina, Inc.,

DISCUSSION

¶5 Permanent classified state employees have a right to appeal from discipline resulting in their discharge, suspension without pay, or demotion.

¶6 Horvat acknowledges that MPC's rules were properly promulgated and that the decision to dismiss his appeal was based on a proper application of the rules, but contends the rule providing that filing occurs upon receipt is unconstitutional. He argues that the "mailbox rule," which governs appeals to the Supreme Court, must also apply to appeals to other tribunals and commissions. The mailbox rule specifies that "[t]he date of filing or the date of mailing, as shown by the postmark affixed by the post office or other proof from the post office of the date of mailing, shall constitute the date of filing of the petition in error."

¶7 Horvat relies on article 5, section 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which states, "[T]he Legislature shall not . . . pass any local or special law . . . [r]egulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in judicial proceedings or inquiry before the courts, . . . commissioners, . . . or other tribunals." Section 46 "proscribes 'special' laws that single out for different treatment less than an entire class of similarly situated persons or entities." State, ex rel. Macy v. Bd. of County Comm'rs,

¶8 The parties cite to no case law directly on point and our research has revealed none. What we are left with is Horvat's argument that all "appellants" must be treated the same. Horvat's appeal, however, is not a judicial appeal; it is an administrative appeal. We must determine whether that distinction is dispositive.

¶9 Our decision is informed by the trial judge's well-written order on summary judgment. He observed, "[Horvat] essentially asks this court to legislate by applying the mailbox rule by judicial fiat to petitions for appeal of an agency employment action to the MPC." The judge continued, "Though [Horvat's] suggested rule change may have some merit, it is a matter for the MPC and/or the legislature. It is not the role of this court to require it by judicial fiat."

¶10 Like the trial judge, we do not seek to legislate by judicial fiat. We are compelled, however, to apply Oklahoma's Constitution. If an administrative rule or a statute conflicts with the Constitution, it must give way. See Macy,

¶11 Although the mailbox rule enunciated in section 940A applies expressly to appeals to the Supreme Court, its common law predecessor was not so limited and was actually articulated as a rule of contract law. See Johnson,

¶12 The rule Horvat advocates for MPC would serve the same purpose. Classified employees of the State have a right to appeal their discharge, suspension without pay, or demotion.

¶13 MPC argues that the Supreme Court's recent decisions on the mailbox rule should not apply here because they addressed only appellate proceedings in the Supreme Court. See id., and Whitehead,

¶14 The Constitution and the spirit of the Supreme Court's holdings in Johnson and Whitehead compel our conclusion that the mailbox rule must apply to appeals to MPC. The rule of filing only upon receipt serves no useful purpose. It does not benefit MPC and is an unnecessary burden on those state employees who do not live near Oklahoma City.

CONCLUSION

¶15 The trial court erred in granting summary judgment against Horvat on his claim seeking a declaration that MPC's rule - that appeals are deemed filed only upon receipt - is unconstitutional. The rule violates Oklahoma Constitution, article 5, section 46. On remand, the trial court shall enter judgment in Horvat's favor and direct MPC to allow his appeal to proceed.

¶16 REVERSED AND REMANDED.

REIF, P.J., and GOODMAN, J. (sitting by designation), concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.