Ruling could send Oakley back to court
Burnet County Judge James Oakley could be back in criminal court for three 2023 charges that had originally been tossed out by a district judge. The Third Court of Appeals in Texas ruled in favor of the local district attorney, making the charges eligible for further prosecution. File photo
Burnet County Judge James Oakley could be back in criminal court for three 2023 charges that were quashed by a district judge before they could go to trial. On Thursday, Nov. 14, a panel of judges from the Third Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the three quashings, ruling in favor of appeals from the local District Attorney’s Office.
Two of those three charges are related to a 2021 vehicle collision in Spicewood in which Oakley was involved. He was accused of tampering with evidence, a felony, and attempting to impair an investigation after he moved debris from the road following the accident as well as misdemeanor official oppression for allegedly mistreating another person involved in the collision.
The third charge, a misdemeanor, is for conflict of interest regarding his dual roles as Burnet County judge and Pedernales Electric Cooperative board director.
Oakley was indicted on a fourth charge in 2023 that did go to trial: a class B misdemeanor for abuse of official capacity. It was alleged the judge used a Burnet County-owned vehicle to commute to his job as an elected PEC director. He was found not guilty in August 2023.
The three charges that did not go to trial were quashed, or set aside/voided, by visiting District Judge Dib Waldrip. The 33rd/424th District Attorney’s Office, which covers Burnet and Llano counties, appealed Waldrip’s ruling in an attempt to get the charges reinstated.
With the appeals court’s ruling on Thursday, the three previously quashed charges are now eligible for further prosecution.
“(With the quashes reversed) we go back to the position that we were in before the court quashed the charges,” 33rd/424th District Attorney Wiley “Sonny” McAfee told DailyTrib.com following the ruling.
Oakley was suspended without pay for six months by the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct due to the abuse of official capacity charge. That suspension was lifted after he was found not guilty, but another suspension could come with the quash reversals as the charges are pursued, depending on another ruling from the commission.
“The Texas Constitution and other relevant authorities which govern the Commission on Judicial Conduct states that ‘Any judge may be suspended from office with or without pay by the Commission immediately upon being indicted by a state or federal grand jury for a felony offence or charged with a misdemeanor involving official misconduct,’” reads a statement from Jacqueline R. Habersham, executive director of the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. “As this rule is discretionary, the Commission can consider issuing a suspension should the DA move forward in pursuing the charges.”
McAfee told DailyTrib.com he plans to pursue the charges and return to court, but it might not be in his hands. McAfee leaves office in January and will be replaced by DA-elect Perry Thomas, who won the 2024 election after McAfee chose not to run.
“(Pursuing the charges) will be up to (Thomas), and once he takes office, that is totally within his discretion,” McAfee explained.
The Third Court of Appeals ruling does not contribute to a decision on guilt or innocence for the charges. It just allows the prosecution to move forward as long as the quash reversals are upheld.
According to court documents from the original quashings, Waldrip dismissed the tampering with evidence and official oppression charges because the original indictment failed to “allege properly or state offenses.”
The conflict of interest charge was quashed on Waldrip’s opinion that the legislative intent of Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code was more directed at for-profit business interests than Oakley’s role as a board member of a nonprofit organization (PEC).
The Thursday ruling from the appeals court panel of judges stated:
“We will reverse the trial court’s orders granting the motions to quash and remand these causes for further proceedings.”
The quashes were originally granted based on Oakley’s legal defense that the actual charges filed by the state were flawed and not applicable. The appeals court panel disagreed.
Oakley provided a written statement to DailyTrib.com following the Nov. 14 ruling.
“While I’m surprised by the reversal by the Court of Appeals of the orders to quash issued by the District Court judge, the rulings are not that of guilt or innocence. The original orders quashing the indictments were based solely on the charging instruments that were filed and had nothing to do with the evidentiary facts of the cases. We look forward to challenging the State to prove with evidence the allegations contained in the indictments.”
3 thoughts on “Ruling could send Oakley back to court”
Comments are closed.
Time to put these charges to bed, let’s see the evidence the state has and let the courts decide.
Take time to read the Court of Appeals slightly scathing opinion about the THREE cause numbers with FOUR counts: ONE count of tampering with physical evidence, see Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(a)(1), TWO counts of official oppression, see id. § 39.03(a)(1), and ONE count of abuse of official capacity, see id.§ 39.02(a)(1). Look up the 404(b)’s filed into the cases to see the other topics of concern about the conduct of this elected official. These counts were handed down in Grand Jury indictments by a jury of peers. Of course, in the USA, citizens are innocent until proven guilty. A man’s character can be judged by what he does when he thinks nobody is watching.
Is this what we need in Burnet County? It never ends! Three appeal charges reversed, suspected audit tampering case still ongoing and then put elevated salaries this year behind it all. Yes a suspension is in order. Something is terribly wrong in our leadership.