/
Chapter 39 Oklahoma ., l § 39: 1 S'QIµlllary of postcpnviction remedies in Okl~oma § 39:2 Oklahoma UPCPA' . § 39:3 -Codified as Oklahoma Statutes Annotated,' Title. 22, §§ 1080 to 1089 ,
§ 39:4 -Regulation of proceedings • I. § 39:5 -Proceedings are postsentencing phase of original case .. . § 39:6 -Custody requirement . § 39:7 -Codified as Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, -Title-22, §§ 1080 to 10.89-Text of:§ 1080 .;, §39:8 - -Text of§ 1081 §39:9 - -Filing procedures-Noncapital·cases; . § 39:10 - -Statute of limitations:_Noncapital cases § 39:11 --Text of§ 1082··.· · " § 39:12 - -Text of§ 1083 § 39:13 - -§ 1083-Noncapital cases-..:..Proceedings in convicting court · § 39:14 - - - -Fin~ judgment granting or denyiµg relief § 39:15 --Text of§ 1084 § 39:16. ~-Text of§ 1085 § 39:17 --§-1086-Text of§ 1086 §39:18 ~·~~daselaw' · § 39:19 _:__§·1087-Noncapital cases-Appeals . § 39:20 · - -Noncapital cases-Supplementation of record § 39:21 - -Text of§ 1087 · § 39:22 · ;..__-Text of§ ·1088 ; § 39:23 --Text of§ 1088.1 ...... § 39:24. --§ 1089-Special procednres for.death ~entences . § 39:25 -:- - -Two-track proceedings · · § 39:26 - - -Filfug:-procedures-Capital cases §. ~9:27 - ~ -Stat~te. of limitations-Capital cases §:_39:28 -----Waiver of untimely claims § 39:29 : - - -Capital cases-Proceedings in Oklahoma
, 1 Court of Criminal Appeals. § 39:30 - - -Right to counsel § 39:31 ---Newly discovered evid~nce of innocence § 39:32 - - -Capital cases-Issues that may be raised § 39:33 ~,_.;--Ineffective counsel claims
493 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND REUEF
§ 39:34 - - - -Discovery § 39:35 - - -Text of§ 1089 § 39:36 - - -Proceedings not subject to provisions of § 1089-Case law · § 39:37 - - -Capital cases subject to § 1089-Case law ' ' ~-....- • j ~. - • § 39:38 Writ of habeas corpus § 39:39 -Statutorily authorized · .-. f; ·· · . k .•••. P , '."-.... ) § 39:40 -Courts permitted to hear and grant I·.· § 39:41 -Filings made -directly in·court· of crimfual appeals: ! . r... , .~ regulated by Oklahoma Court of !Crimirial Appeals·
p .Ru1e:10.• 1.~ .t 1 • • ~·2·1.: · .-.. ';.:} ; .._.
§ 39:42 -Case law . : ~~ 1 ,., § 39:43 Writ of mandamus ,·,"1 . '; 11·1u> § 39:44 Writ of error coram·, nobis ·· · · ~ ·· . ·~ .I, § 39:45 Judicial review of certain prison disciplinary · proceedings •. ·. 1·;. · · ··: ' 1 § 39:46 . .;.;_Case law · ...... · . 1 ~ • I ; • · > _.. § 39:47 Postconviction DNAtestfug stafute-Oklahoma ·. : Statutes, Title 22, § 1373 · .. ~ ' ', § 39:48 Postconviction :DNA Testing Statu~klahoIIia ,,\ Statutes,- Title·22;·.§··l373~Text of§ 1373, · § 39:49 Postconviction DNA testing statu~klahoma ,'• States, Title 22, § 1373-Case law.·. , § 39:50 Erroneous Convictions Act; : . , , ' § 39:51 -Case law
KeyCite®: Cases and other legal materials listed hi'. KeyCite · Scope can be · researched through the KeyCite servi~J on West"8w®. Vse. ;KeyCite to check citations for form, parallel references, pnor and later histor.y, and compre9~n-:. sive citator information, including citation~ to other decisions and secondary · 1 materials. · · , : . " . · ·· · ' . •
§ 39:1 Summary of postconviction remed,ies-_~ Oklaho~~ Principal postconvictiqn remedy: . · UPCPA (1966 version). In almost· all noncapital cases this.rem edy is applied for in the convicting court;' in death s~ntence.cases the remedy is applied ·for' in the Oklahoma C9urt of Cri:inihaJ Appeals. The remedy· is'a postsentericing· phase of the origi#a1 · criminal case,. not an· independent civil action. The remedy js ·au thorized by statutei ·There ·is no: custody requirement under -the remedy. Newly discovered evidence of innocence is a ground for relief under the remedy. ~· · ": . >· : ·· · ·· -·· ;· · , '•. Right to counsel: · ·1. . · t • . There is a right to counsel in,Oklahoma.UPCPA proceedings.
494 I I
OKLAHOMA !· §.39:1
Statute of limitations: . · -~ ·i • l-. ~ .. · .. · ·, .In noncapitaj cases th~r~: .is no s~atu~e· of~tati9ns on aP,ply ing for relief. However, even though there is. nQ iix~d: tim~, Umit on applying for UPCPA relief in noncapital cases, prejudicial q~la,y jp-filiµg tJ\e. petition.. fo~ a>ostconviction r~lief m_ay ,result in the denial of relief based O)l:the .doctrine .of ·l~che.s.Jn death sel)ten~e cases .theremedY, m,l!St be appiie.d. for wit:t.iin, 9Q d~ys fi-~m tlie. date the state's brlef"g* the· dire~t appeal :is)il~d · ~r; if a 1 reply brief is filed, Wi~hiri':90' days f.rQitl' :tJie fili~g o( that J;>rie~ on t~e direct appe~·~·, ,·. . . '. ; / .. ': ·.I •. ~, ... , l: . ', .·. '.~ , ' .
. ' '·.
Ii
Other reitiedies: ; . . I ' • • ;: ...... • • I " ' I •• Ctu~am nobis. is nc) lo,nger an -avail.able'. postcoriviptio~· re~e~y 1p , . 1 Oklahoma. · ·· ·~· ' · . ••• · "". •. · • · · •• Oki4ihoma has~ a, postconViction :_D_NA testing s:tatute, '. en~cted in 2013. .. . · Oklahoma· has .an .erroneous convictions~ act, enacted in 2003. ! j Helpful~eadill:gs:,:_ . .1·' . • !.: . _ .. _ .(. (1) · Lerblance, The Oklahoma Post•.Conviction. P~ocerl:ure A.ct, 41 Okla. B.J. 1683 (l970) ...... ,, .... , , .- '. 1 ·: • • • :· ~- : :~. : (2) Note>, ·criminal Law:;·constitutional Adequacies· 1of Oklah• dnia's Post.;bonviction ·Remedies; 23 .Okla.' L.t-Rev:.:107i (l97~)t.L · : (3) Recent Developments, 23 .Okla. L. Rev. 478 (1970) ·.-. .. ' .. (4) 1-fot~, Ctjnµnal. Law:. ~~b~as Qorp~s,. 9 Q~~-- ~·: ~ey. 40'.7 (1956) (• .• ·'· . ' ... ; ·. . . . -· .. - ~: .. . , .. J ...... ( (5) Note, ,Criminal ·Procedure: Walker;v. State_;_Dooming Challenges to Appellate· Counsel's Ineffectiveness, 5li Okla.. fi~ Rev. 601 (1998) · · .. : ,;. · : · ... · •· . -.:·, : .· ·~ (6) Dupler, ·The Iiigforiohs· Revolutiqn: Walker ·v. · Sta'.te and Capital Post-Convictfori Prdcedl:ire; 68 Okla:B'~J:·2a24 (1997) · ·. . (7) Wenie~e·, :M:uryhy.~and 'L'Elinp~r1!: Jµiple~~ntat~oh ·of Atkins v: Virginia in O~ajloma,,28 Okla. City}J.L~ ~v. 1~1 (2Q03) . (~),_~~.c~pt pey~lopme~~.~r-P~~¥ L~w: ·~~ Q~~o~~ 9Qurt o~. Cnnun:fi! .App~~~'- .J>.~Qcedur~ a~~ Sub~tant~y~ i\ppli~~t~~n ~f R;m~ v ... Ari~o~~ !~o pk~ahpip~~~ .9f1P~taJ. \S~~~enci,~g ~cheme, 5~ Okla. L~ '.Rev .. 36p (2003) ..... · . , · · ,. , · . ,
. I (9) .~owrey, The Respo~s~ .tQ: ~re~li.een. v.. '..R~ynolds: Qklah7 Qm~'s Sys~ni· for Eva)uating,;E;xtra-~ecprp Constitut~opal -Ol~s i;n. D~~~ Penalty,O~e.s, -~ J .. ,App. ~~c.,,&. Process l23 .. (20q9~ ·:;i,
495 i ' § 39:2 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF
§ 39:2 Oklahoma UPCPA The principal postconviction remedy•in Oklahomt;t is the 1966 version of the UPCPA. ··
§ 39:3 Oklahoma UPCPA-Codified as Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, Title 22, §§ 1080 to 1089 · ·The Oklahoma UPC;pA was.origm~lly.enacted in 1970 a;ndrhas peen amended four 'times. As. so ame.nded, the Oklahoma UPCPA is codified as the ·"Uniform· Post-Conviction Procedure Act" in eleven sections of Chapter 18 ("Appeals") of Title 22 ("Criminal Procedure") of the Oklahoma Statutes Annotated (Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 22, § 1080 through.§ 1089).· As originally enacted and codified in 1970,' the Qklahoma UPCPA consisted of nine sections, Olila.Stat.Ann. tit. 22~ § 1080 through § 1088. The 1987 amendment added a tenth sect~on, O~a.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1089, governing death sentence cases·, to the UPCPA 'The 1987 amendment imposed a 60 day statute of limitations on filing petitions for postconviction relief in death sentence cases and in various other ways provided for the expedit ing of death sentence postconviction proceedings. The 1995 amendment added· an eleventh. section to the UPCPA, Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1088.1, ~nd drastically revised Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1089 by, among other things, transfer- . ring original jtirisdiction over the filing of postconviction petitions in death sentence cases from the convicting court to the Okla homa Court of Criminal: .Appeals•. The 2004 and 2006 amend ments made: ,ad,ditjoqal amendments to Okla. Stat.· Ann. tit.. 22, § 1089. § 39:4 Oklahoma UPCPA~Regulation of proceedings. . Proceedings under the Oklahoma UPCPA are regulated not only by the UPCPA itself, but. also by other. statutes and· various court rules. See, e.g., Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1356(A) (the; Okla homa. Indigent Defens~ System shall perfect all capital postcon viction proceedings. for all. cases to ;which the Syst~m is appointed by Oklahoma qistp.ct courts .at .. fh,e t~me. the appeal is initiated, except .as otherwise proyided. in this sectfori. and § 1'~58 of. this title); Okla.Stat.Ann.· tit. 22, § 1360(A), (B) (the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System shall represerifiridigents in proceedings for postco~victibn r~lief in all capital cases.; in noricapital cases; the System shaff·n.ot' be appointed to· represent· indig~nts ·iii proceedings for postconviction relief; provided, however, the System may represent indigents in postconviction proceedings if the representation is related to another pending case in which the System has been appointed, :or the proceeding is necessary to
496 OKLAHOMA § 39:7 obtain an appeal out of time ·ari behalf of a System client in a case .~o wltjch .,~he System .has been.properly appointed); Rule 1.2(C), Okla.Ct.Crim.App.R~ (applicability of these l"!lles to death penalty .or noncapital postconviction cases); Rule. ~~l(A), Okla.Ct.Crim.App.R. (regulating motfons .for a new. trial ba~ed on newly .di~covered e~dence of innocence in UPCPA proceedings); Rul~. 2.l(E), Oltla.CtCrim.App.R. (regulating UPCPA p;roceed ings .·institutep lo obtain an out of time appeal for. a .p~titioner denied a direct appeal through no faultof his 'own, and, also regulating UPCPA.proce~ding instituted to .obtain.~ app-~al out of time from a fi~aqudgment denying UPCPA rel~~f); Rules 5.1 through 5.6, ·Okla.Ct.(Jrim.App.R. (requirements governing post co n viction' procedure in noncapital cas.es); Rule 9. 7, Okl~.qt.qriip~App,R. (requirements gqverning postconviction pro- cednre ·in death sentence cases). · · · · · · .
§ 39:5 , Oklahoma UPCPA~Proceedings are. postsentencing phase of original case
-' • • • : • 1 .( • An Oklahoma UPCPA proceeding .is a postsentencing phase of· the original criminal case, not an independent civil action. It has long been the law in Oklahoma )that postconviction relief measures are not a substitute for a: dire~t appeal; nor is it the of fice, of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, to provide .a second ap peal under the mask of postconviction application; claims that could have, been raised upon direct ·appeal but were not are waived and· claims that were raised and decided in a petitioner's direct appeal are barred ·as res jU:dicata. Battle v. Sirmons, 2009 WL 1505566 (N.D. ·Qkia~ 2009). , · · ' .
§ 39;6 Oklaho~a UPCPA~Custody require,ment : ·, ' ~ '• •' • ' :• : ' ' '> ' :. ' - I • 0. There is. no custody requirement· in Oklahoma UPCPA proceedings. Okla.Stat.Ann. ~it. 22, § 1080 authorizes relief for pe:rsoi;tf;l convicted of, or ~erite:Q.~ed for a crime, but does not ma~date' that the; perso.n .applying for. relief be imprisoneq or under any restraint. ~ :
§ 39~7· .·Oklahoma'uPCPA~Codified as Oklahoma St~tutes · · Annotate4, 'l'itl~ .~2, §§ 108(fto.. lq~e-:....Text 9f §·lOSO ·Th~ ·Oklahoma ·UPCPA; ·codified at' Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 22, § 1080 :~hrdllgh §J0~9·, provides: ·• . . : · · · · · · : • , • J ; • ; . •
497 § 39:7 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES. AND· RELIEF
:.. '." ·Oklahoma.Statutes Annotated- ~ ; I ; ~ '. I • j § 1oso. · Post-Conviction Procedµre Ac~Right t~· cJial- . ' I lenge conviction· or $entence . . ' ;,;!.. · .· ;. Any person who has. been convicted .of, or ··seiltehced. for, ·a .. crhn'.e ·and· who claims: · . ·' '· · · - · · · 1: • . : mayjhstitute 'a proceeding under this' act ill the court ~Ii . . "wl~foh the .ju4gment 'iilid sen~ncel oil convic~ibn ~as imposed ·· to secure the· appropriate relief:: Excluding ·a -timely· appeal, .thisact encompasses a~d replaces all common ~aw and statu tdcy'm~thods ~f challenging a conviction or sentence. · :~ · · t t ' - • • < 1 • • · ( • - ·, • , f ~ I ~ • t ' .(a) that the conviction ·or 1the sentence was fu violation ·of tb'.e Constitution of the'. United States ·or 'the Constitu~ · tion or law·s of this state; · . ' . (b) th'at the court' was withouf jurisdict~on tri ifiip~se sentence; · .. · · · ·, ... " · : · , .· · (c) that the sente.nce exce~Cf:s.:.the rp.aximum ~tho~ed by law; . · · · . ·.. . , .. -. · · . · ... · ·' · (d) that there exists eViderice of material facts, .. not previ . ously present·ed and heard;·" that requires vacation· of the convictibn. or sentence. in the interest of justice;~· ; · (e) that his sentence: ·has expired, hiS suspended sen tence,. probatjon, ;parole, or' conditional· release. unlawfully ·.. revoked,. or he is. otherwise.unlawfully held in custody. or .other res~aint; or ·. · , , (f) that the conviction or sentence.is otherwise subject to . collateral attack .u:pon. any, ground ·of, alleged.· ervor hereto. fore avail~ble under any; .common l~w, statu~ory- or .other writ, motion, petition, proce(\<;Ung o~ ~em~dy~: . ,, i. 'r" . :·
§ 39:8 Okl&homa UPCPA.~codifi~d ~s okliili~m~ 'statiites I ; : ' Annotated, Title 229. §§ ~1080 to 1089-Text of §· 1081 § · 1081~·' Cominence~ent"of proceeding· · _;" · ; · · · ,· ~( A ·proceeding i.s coninienced 'by filing a verified "application '·for postconviction -relief' ·with ·the 'cle:tk: of the court iinpo~ing judgment if an appeal is not pending. When·such a prbceedmg arises from the reyocatio~ of parole or conditional release, Jhe procee.<:Jing shall .be conimenqed by 1filing ,'Ii. verified ·"applicatlon for postcoiiviction' ·:relief'' with ·the clerk· of. the ·district" court in .... the: co.~~ty in :w~ch~ t~e Ear.Qle -~or,. cp~qitioA'l.r~lease .'Yas revoked. Facts within the perso~~J .. ~ow~~~gf1· of tJ:w applic~nt and the authenticity of all docl.iments and exliibits induded in or attached to the application must be sworn to affirmatively as true and correct. The Court of Criminal Appeals may pre- •98 OKLAHOMA § 39:9 scribe the form-of.the application and verification. The..clerk . . sh~l docket the application.upon its r~ceipt _an
.~ttc;>rney._ .. ;.. . . 1 • • . ; § 39,9 Oklahoma UPCPA-Codifted as Oklahoma. Statutes . · Annotated, 1 Titl~ 22, §§ 1080 to 1089-;Filing ·:. : procedures---Noncapital cases . .-' , In a noncapital case the petition for postconviction relief under the Oklahoma. :rJPCPA i_~ filed in . the convicting. court. Okla.S~at.Ann. tit~. ·22, § 108Q::· convicting court. tr.be conyict~g l coqrt .will. almost. invar.i~Jlly be .a dis.trict court.. S~e, e.g.,. Okla-.,Const~,- ~.· 7, § 7(11)'..,(the disttj.ct · court shall have unlimited original jurisdictionipt1~ll J'1sti9iable matters, except as otherwise provided in this. article); Okla.Stat.~:.j tik. 2p,. § 91. l_ .Cthe district, courts: o(._t}le state. of Oklahoma -are :the. .. succeesor~ to thejll.risdictiop .of~ uther courts, including the Superior Courts, the County Co~:, the Courts of Com~oq_ Pl.~as, .. ~pecial Ses~lop.s Courts, .. Court~ of. Sp~_~ial Ses sions, City' Coutts; Juvenile· Courts, ·children's Courts,' Justice of the· Pe~ce qourts, and nmnfoiP.al courts· in pto.~e·edings ·for the Yiolation'of'state statute~). · · ·:" ;·~ , ·,_ · -·.- · · · · ··:·In.,a, ~onc~pita~ ·ca_se the p~tition.for rel~ef, unde~--t~e:-~9l>A shouta .be it;l 'confo~ity with' tij.e model form' Qf application .for relief"_'' ¢oiitaine4 i.µ Form.·. 13 ..11, Oklii. Ct~CriIP:~A}lp~ R. Okla~Stat.Ann~ tit. 22,. § 1081 "(Okl.ahoma Court of CruninaI Ap p~als may_ prescnbe ~~:tofu?: of pe~itipn.{~r .p~steo~Vi~tiqri ~ei.ief); Rule 5.6, Okla.Ct.Cnm.~pp ..Jt (any conviGt~d p~rson :Who seeks postconviction relief under UPCPA n1ay' apply tO the 1 trial coUrt on the form provided in Form 13.11). Fpr case law· on' OJda. ·~tat. ~ii. tit. ·22, § i08i, se·e; '~.g., Ldgan v. -State, ·2013 OK CR 2, 293 P.3d 969 (Okla. C~. ·App~ 2013), as corrected, (Feb. 28, ~013) (post-conviction applications that assert merely. conclµsory, ·. unpro:v~b:te, or unspecific claims· .of ineffective assist@ce o~ appellate couns~l .do 1\0t. raise .. a geµuine issµe of materiaJ fact about. the ~d~qu~cy.:of appella~, CQµpi;Jel~s-,repi:~s~n- 4~9 ·§ 39:9 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF ·tation of the applicant; post-conviction applications must·-be ·ac companied by argument~ ·some citation to relevant authority or legal norins, and specific factual averment(s), which support the specific claim(s) being made in the application; applications that do not meet these minimal requirements can be summarily disposed of by the district court, either with or without waiting for an answer from the State; jt is not the job of the district court to comb the record or the law looking for support for the ap- · plicant's claims). § 39:10 Oklahoma UPCPA-Codified as Oklfthoma Statutes Annotated~ Title 22, §§ 1080 to 1089- Statute of limitation~Noncapital cases ·In a noncapital case there is no statute of limitations on ·filing a petition for postconviction relief under the Oklahoma UPCPA. This is because .there is nothing in the Oklahoma UPCPA requir ing a petition in a noncapital case to· be filed by any particular date. · There is no statute of limitations applicable to non-capital ap plications for postconviction relief, and thus in Oklahoma ~'an· .ap plication for postconviction ·relief in a non.;.capital case is always de·emed to be timely filed." Patton v. Okla}J,oma, 2·009 WL 1227655 (N.D.i·Okla. 2009). ' · · . § 39:11 Oklahoma UPCPA-Codified as Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, Title 22, §§ 1080 to 1089-Text of§ 1082 · . § 1082. Co~ costs.·and expenses of repr~seiitation' ··,;.• ~fthe. apP,li~ant is -q.nable to pay court costs .. a,nd expenses of · · representation, he shall include an affidaVit to th~t effect with ; . ~he application, which shall then be filed without costs. ·counsel , .necessacy in representation' shall be made available to the ap- pl~can'.t after filing the application on a finding bY. the cou~t th~t ~u~h. assistance is ne~essary to provide a fair·. determina . 'tioh' of meritorious claims. Jfa11: attorney is appointed to repre sent su9h, an applicant then the fee's· aµd expenses' of such' at torney sh~l be paid from the court fund. · · '6 J .. '. '· § 89:12 Oklahoma UPCPA-Codified as.Oklahoma · :: ·statutes Annotated, Title. -22, .§§ 10&0 tQ 1089_.;.Te~ . of § ~0.88 . . · ·. :. . · § .· 1088. · ·Response·by state-Disposition of application · A. Within thirty (30) days after the docketing of the applica . tion; or within any further time. the court may fix,. the state 500 OKLAHOMA § 39:13 shall respond by answer or by motion which may be supported , by affidavits. When an applicant asserts a claim of ineffective " assistance of counsel, the state ·shall: have .90 days after the docketing of the application to respond· by'answer or by motion. In considering the application, the court shall take account of substance, regardless of defects of form. If the application; is .not accompanied by the record ·of the ·proceedings challenged therein, the respondent shall file with its· answer. the record or portions· thereof Jthat are material to the questions raised in the· application;· or such records may be ordered. by. the court. · The· court may also allow depositions and affidavits for good . cause· shown. · · . : B. · When a. court is satisfied~· on the basis of the application, , the. answer or motfon-.~of respondent, and the record, that the · · applicant is not entitled to postconvictlon relief and no purpose - would be· serr,ed=-·by. an:y further proceedings, it may order the application ttismissed or grant leave to file an amended · application. Di~position on the pleadings and record is not· proper if there exists a material :issue· of fact. The judge as signed to the case should not dispose of it on the basis of infor mation within his per8onal knbwledge not made·a: part of the record>. .. · .. · .. ' · · C. The court may grant a motion by either party for sum mary disposition of the application when it .appears from the response and pleadiI:tgs that there i~ no genuine issue· of mate . rial fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment.~s a mat ter ,of law. ~-order disposing of an. applicatioQ. without a hear ing sh~ll sta.te the co,urt'~ · fjndings and. conclusions regarding .. th~ issues presen~d. · · § 39:13 Oklahoma UPCPA-Codified as Oklahoma· Statutes Annotated, Title 22, §§ 1080 to· 1089-· · § 1083-Noncapital case~Proceedings ·in convic~ing co~ , Jn a nol).~apital. cas~,; mthln 39 days of the docketing of the ap plication for postconvictiori relief, or within any further time the court may fix, .the state shall respond by answer or by motion to the application. 'Okla. Stat.' Ann.', tit. 22, § l083(a). Based on the application for relief, the state's response, and· the record, the ap plication for relief ·~ay be summarily· dismissed or the applicant granted Jeave to··fiie an: .amended applicatidn; however, ·disposi..: tion on the pleadings and record is not proper· if there exists a material issue ·of fact'.•'Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 22, § 1083(b). The court may grant a motion' by either party for summary disposi tion of the application when· it 'appears from -the::response and 501 § 39:13 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF pleadings that.there is no genuine· issue of material fact and'the moving_ party is,entitled ..tojudgment as.a matter- of law~- Okla. Stat.. Ann.,· tit. 22, § 1083(c) .. If the- application for; postcomtlction r.elief cannot· be disposed. of o,n the, pleadings ;and·, t]le record, .or if there exists .a material issue .of fact, th~. court shall .conduct. _an evidentiary ·hearing: Okla~'. Stat. Ann., tit. 22,[ § .1084. r , , ;-; For case law on· tit. 22, ·§ 1083, see, .. e.g.,· Logan: v, 1 State, :2013 OK CR 2,.293 P..3d 969 (Okla. ·Crim .. App. 2013), as corrected, (Feb: ·28; 2013)r(district court cannot suniniarily- dispose .. of a (non-capital) application for 1post-conviction ·relief'if the applica tion raises -"a genuine issue ·of material:fact," which prevents a finding that either party is entitled to judgment as. a matter of law;. an issue is "material" in this-context if it is one that could be d~termiriative on a. claim raised in. the 1~ostconvictio~ application, i.e., a,fact-that.could:potentially help the_,applicant ~stablish.that he or·ahe was prejudiced by appellate _coµnsel's: ~e.asonable fail ure. toi raise. a particular· claim now raised; disputed issu,es ;of ,fact Within claiJns that were meritless or could not have .pre.v~l~d on direc~ .. appeal :anyway are not_genuine issues pf material factt)!1' . . . • .. • l ! . , . ~ r:: i 39:14 .. Oklab..oma, .VPCPA~odifi.ed .as Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, Title 22, §§ 1080 to 108~; c1 · § 108S~Noncap_.tal cases-Fin~ judgm.en.t·, ~anth:ig or. denyi~g ~elie~ . _; .. , .. :_-. ., ..... ; A firial judgm'ent disposing of a UPCPA application· without a hearing in .a noncapita1 case shall s.tate tlie .coutt's )findings· i:ind conclusions regarding the· issues _presented.· Okla.Stat~Anri>tit. 22, § 1'083(c). In entering final-judgment aftet ··a: hearing ip. a noncapital UPCPA case, the court shall make 'specific findings of fact, and state expressly its conclusions of law, relating to each issue pre~e11teci.>Okl~.S~~.Al:µl. tit. 22,. §, 1084. lf;:t~e ;final .judg-: ment is·,41.fav9r qf:the: appliQant, the co~ has brQad.powers to grant apprppria~ relief.. Okla._Stat.~. ~it .. 22; § lp~5. :. § 89:15 Oklahoma UPCPA-Codifled as OhlBho~a . ··. · . · ' Statutes·Annotated, Tit1e"~2/§§ ioso·to 1089-'l'e~ .. · ' 1 of§ ·1084 · ·. ·, · · ·· ·' · ~ ·· · · :; · ~: .~; ... · ~ ·· . 1 • , ' I ' • ~ l • ~ ·~ , : ~ • : .,. I j ~ : • .§ 10~ •.. Evident~ary he~g~~~ngs· of fac~, _and . . . , .concl.u~jons ~~f I~w. . · · " i. • ...... • . . . If the ~pplicatio~ .canno.t be .disposed of;on the pleadings anq . reco.rd, or; there exists a material i~sue of fact, the; court ~shall conduct an evidentiary~hearing.at which tim~ .a record shall be ,·made and:pres~rved. The court may r~ceive~proofby .aftidavj.t$, : d0J)oeitions, .oral: testimony,. or other eViidence ~d m~y orcler the applicant bro:ught 'Q.efo;ce it Joi the hearing; A jugge should 502 I I . OKLAHOMA .. .;•· ·Ji'·.··. §:39il8 ·~·,not preside at such a,hearing.if.his testiillony·is matettlaL:·The - court: ·shall make, specific findings of fact, and state expressly ':;its conclusions ·Of law,: r.elating'to each issue' presented. This· Or• · ~der ig, a.ifinal judgment. · · : · · ·< ; .· ·: . · '·· I : i ~ • : ~ :. I ! • • ( , ~:: ~' : ' JT._.r I.' ' ~. ~ L • • \ \ ~'' ' 0 l S~:l~--.-~Q~~~m~·.UPCP~~Cod·J·A~~(.,s Q~orila . ' . ·... . , 1 (Sta~ut~fJ~ot~~tJ,.Tltl~:~~,":§§JO~O .. to ~~8~'J;~xt . . ; of l 1085., . ' . . .: :. " ' . .' .' . ~· . ' r. . · § · 1085. · Finding iJi· favor -~f applicant · j " • : ~ ·· ·- .. If the coiirt finds ill favor· of the applicant, .it shall :vacate and s'et aside the"judgment ~ncfsentence and, discharge orresen~ 'te#be 'hi1#~ 1 or grapt a.new trial,r'or :~c>rrect' or ll).oditY' the judg . ~ent' ~d s~n:teµce a~_nu~y ~ppe~ appropri~te.·Th~ 'eouft §hall enter. 8:J1Y suppi~me~tary otders _as to rearrEtjgnrilent, retrial, . . 'cust~dy, bail, disch~ge, 'or ·9th.er m~tters". that may be· neces~ 1 Saty arid proper~ · · ... '• ·,. •• ' · • • • • ' · ., • • • .. • • J I . : : ~ 1 ' . ; I .. * : ' .. .1 • ,• • • • : ·--; ' ~ . . - :, i ·,_. § 89:17 .~Oklahoma UPC:PA-Codified as-.Oklahoma Statutes:.Annotated~ Title,22, ,§§ 1080to;1089~ · .. : ,1.§ 1086-Text,of § 1086 ·: ., ·: .;\_ · · ·§ ·10~. Sub~~quent appli~atiOn . All ..grounds· ;for reiief avtiµable to; an! applicant under this I act : ' must" he rai'sed in. h(s 'original, '.supplemental' or amended applicatio#~ Ally grolind fiiiatly adj'tiilicated or not' so riµ~ed, or : ~~wil;1gly,. yoluri.t~ly ~4· iI~~lHgeiitly waive~ ;~n'.. the ·proce~d~ ··jngthat resWted in'.the coriVictio1f·or'··sentence or in any other I '; ~roceeding' th~: a~plic~nf b,as taken. tcf secilr~ r~Ji~f may ilpf ~e ·. ~he ·J?.~sis'f~r .a~s~9sei}uel}t ll:P~lic~tioP.,.· .unlr~~ tlt~ ·cou~ fin~s.-.a . ground for rehef asserted which 'fhr' sUffic1ent ·reason· was ·not - :.aasertecf ~r was inadequately raised: mthe t prior. application. . \ .... • ·.: f 1:. ' •.~-. .. .. : '·, .·" . .\ 't' ~ '. ·• ~ ' '.:: -, • ' • '. i. . ·~ ' ·. .'. ; : • .~ ~ •J •~: ' • * ;:, \ t; ••' I J • ; ' ') 1 ,- • 't ,:_ -.'.' ~ (. ' • < • ••_ ~ ', , : ' ~ i : ! § ~9:.JS , Ok1Jl}\9~a lJPC~~~C9di~ed ~s.~OJd@Pm~J , .'. · ' .. . -~ .. ~tat11t.es Ann9ta~d..,-3 Titl~ 2~,. §* 1l080 ~t() 108~, • iJ. L; . §.1086,-Case.l~w., : . ,· · .. ... r;:: , : :, .. :·, · ·For't~ase iaw on §1 1086; see e·.g.; ·Watson v.' "State; ··2015 ·OK',CR 3, 343 P.3d 1282 (Okla;: Crim.". App;· -2015)· (after< a·first··p6.st conviction motioµ request~µg,.DNA t.e~ting has be~n fi~ally decided by •the courts, th.e ··pro~edural b'tir- proVisiOns ·in Section 1086 of the· Uiiiforhi Post-eon-(riction" Ace apply th -~~e~lfetitioner's second or subsequent· post.icohvictidn.'inotion· requesting DNA testing tinder•. the.Postconviction DNA~Act); Cruz_v. ,¥cC 504 OKLAHOMA § 39:21 days from the entry -.of the: judgment. Okla.- Stat. Ann., tifa··22, § 1087. In order to ·effect this· appeal, a petition in- error and sup porting brief, with a certified copy of the final judgment attached, must be filed with the clerk of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. within .30_d~ys from the.date t~e·fil).al.judgmeµt of the district court is filed with the clerk of the district court. Rule 5.2(C)(2), 0,kla.Ct.Cri_m.App.R .. Failure ~o file the pe~ition in ~r ror,r,with a'. brief, within:the. time provided, is jurisdictional and shall constitute a waiver of right to appeal ·and a procedural bar for the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to consider the appeaVRule 5.2(C)(5), Okla.Ct.Crinl.App.R. In addition, the party desiring to. appeal from the final Judgment of a di'strict court in a noncapital UPCPA case must· file a Notice of Post-ConViction Ap peal with the Clerk of 'the· district' court within; l:O days.from the date the· final judgment is filed. in the 'district· c.otirt Rule 5.2(C)(l); Okla.Ct.Crim~App.R. A model fonn of Notice of Post- . Conviction Appeal is· set forth in . Rule . 5.2(CJ(9), Okla.Ct.Crim.App.·R~ Upon motion of either pS!f;y on the filing of ii timely' s'uch .il'Otice of intent to appeal, the district court may . ;stay the; execution ofits final judgnien(pending disposition of the · appeal. Okla.Stat.~. tit. 22, '§' 1087~ ' ·,. · ; 1: •,, . § 39:20 Oklahoma· UPCPA-Codified as Oklahoma • ! ,:, ••· StatutesAimotated, Title·22, §§ 1080 to 1089- Noncapital cases-Supplementation· of record- ln1 ·a noncapital c~se, ·:Rule 3.11, Okia.Ct.Crim.App.R., relating to supplementation 'of the record,, applies to any reque.st to supple ment the record ill aii appeal_ of a deni'ru of .UPC~A postconvi'ction relief to include allegatio~s Of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.' Rule 5.~(C)(7), Okla.Ct.Crim.App.R. • l • • . !' -· . . ;§'39:21· Oklahoma UPCPA-Codified as Oklahoma · · ' ' Statutes Annotated, Title 22, §§ 1080 to 1089-T~xt · : : of § 1087 ! ' .. - " · · ·' · ' § 1087. Appeal to Courfof Crhnin~i'Appeals A final j~dgment entered under this act may. be appealed to the __Coµrt of Crfurizj.al ,App~als on peti~~n in: error filed either by .tl~e·.aJ?plic.a~t.. or· ..~he'E,3tat~\.~thin 'th~rtY (30) days from the entrjr of the judgment. Upon motion of either p·arty on filing of ·notice of. intent to appeal, within, ten (10) days of enteriµg the ·. · judgment, the· district court may stay the execution of the judg ment pending disposition on appeal; provided, the Gourt of · Criminal Appeals may· direct the vacation of the order staying . the execution. prior to final disposition of the ·appeal. 505 § 39:22 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF § 39:22 . Oklahoma UPCPA-•.Codified as Oklahoma ,: " -·.·, :· Statutes Annotated, T:i,tle 22, §§.1080to1089...o:-Text ~. ·. ·,j) of§ .1088 ;, .·'. ' I • ;_'·., · . ~§: .1088.-. Short title· -.· _. . .. , · · : , This act may be cited as: the· !'Post•Conviction Procedure Act." ' , • ' • : • • } : • ,',' • ·_,: ~ • • , ; • 1 • • '. ~ t; ·. ~ . I ., , ' . ·~: _:- ., j ~ · : 1 . § 39:23 Oklahoma UPCPA-Codifted ·as Okl&ho:Dia: ·: i· · · ·"; Stiltutes Annotated, Title· ·22, §§ ·1080 to 1089~TeXt . " . Of § 1088~1 \.. : . . I ' . . ,.§ ioss~1. Po~t~on~ctioii i:elief appii~ati~n;_Reason~' ·: ...... :. .. al>Ie ipquiry-S~ctiOns . · . . . : . · . ·. . ·,~ A. By. presenting to the .co.iirt, wl;iether by signing, filing, submitting, Olf 'Ja~r advocating, a pl~ading, written motiol:l or . otJier .. 'papei:s .regarding an applJcation for ...P §;39:24 9~~0J#a uPci>.A~o.d,.fied ~s o~a4'..l~a ·." -_J · · · statutes Anhotated, Ti~le 22; §§ ·roso to 108~ ·· · '. § "10~9-SP.eci8I pr_oc.~d~~~ ·t9.~ .aei((ti{~~~tenc~~ ~ ~ . , _. ·. , 1. _, , : , • • r · , · ... • • _/ , ! ; .... • , · ..... • • ._ ~ . • :. . · · ·okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1089t'. since!its ;drastic reviSion in:!l.995, e~tablishes special procedure·s. ·to1 be. followed ia tpostconyicti~n ·proceedings instituted by -death row inmates ·and~ mandates· that the postconviction. petitions of such inmates be, file~·in the. Okla homa Court of Criminal Appeals ,rather .than the.:con.v.icting court. 506 OKLAHOMA '.: .. §• 39:26 Okla.Stat.Ann. -tit'.. 22,;.§. :1:089; applies~ only .. to· (l) 'convicted persons.: sentenced. to death whose death sentence ,has been af firmed~:oF. :is being.reviewed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals; and (2) noncapital cases wh~re .the defendant h_as .also receiyed· OI.l~- .. or' more de·a~:Ii ~s~ntei;i~~s. pkla.S~at.Aill;l. tit. 2~, § i.OS9(1\.). Iii an· postc~nyiction procee(Ungs sµbje:ct to §. 1089, :a)) nililtter~ ·~at spe~callfg.ove~~qby §.10.89 sh~JI be:sul;>Je~t to the otne~ pro~sio~ ·Qf the ..'Oklan<;>ma. U:J?O~~ on othe.r h~nd, 'ix1. all p'ostcoi;rvi.Ctionj>rriceedijlgs sµbject. ~ §' l0~9; if tne ·proVisfori.s of _§' 1ps~ ·con~ct. wit~ 1 otll~t.~ pr~~si~°:s' of .i~~ "QPCPA, th~n § l~~9 shall gove~ :: . . . ., j ; . • . . i •• ; ~ ; • · .• : , •• · • ~ . : · . • . .•. ; · •.. • ... The provisions of§ 1089 do. not, however, apply to death sentence pc;>$WAAvi~tiop. proc~edings:· alr~~dy .pe~cling~ w}len ~~·. w;as comple~ey~ r~Cles~gned, effecti.:ve Jfov: .. ;l, .1~95 .. In ~n cases not 1 subject .. .to § ioa9,..the ot~er,.pr9vi~iQns .of the _UPQP4,.-that is, Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § lO~Qt tJJ.r9ugh. § _1()88~:i-are applicable to· the petition for postco~viction relief. · ' l. -\ f -: ' • "... : • - • • : • • ~ i ·. : '· ' : ' • I § 39:25 Oklahoma UPCPA~C~dift~d'.8'.sOkl&homa ., . · · i:statutes Annotated~ Titlf! 22, ·§§ 1080~to 1089--· ! · · · '· , · ·§ 108g...;...Two~track proceedings ; · · : · ' : ·- · ' · In .eff~c~ th~r,efor~, O~hihom~ U~CPA c,ases are two-tr~ck prQcee.cµ~gs; th~r~. is on~: set 9f procedures. ~o be follow~d when §.~089 .. applies, B;nd ~other set of.procedures to ..belollowed when § ·l089 is illapplic~ple to, ~he case. § 39:26 .. :OkJ.ahom~ uPC]?A;i~difted as ..OJ4~o~a·. .: . : Statute~An!tot1,1ij!d, Title 22, ~§ 1080 tp,10~~ ... • ;§ 1089-Fi~gpr,ocedures-C~pi~al.cases .. ,··1·. _. In ·a death sentence cas~"~'libject to. Okla.St.at.Ann.· tit. ·2?, § 1089, the application: for postconViction ··relief is filed, not in the convicting court or in any o~her court of trial jurisdiction, but directly· in the Oklahoma·· .Court of· Criminal ·Appeals. Okla~StatfAnn~ tit~ 22~· § 1089(1:>)(1)~ · ·· ' · · ·,: · : · '. · · AdditiOrially,' the petition ·.rJr relief ~der the· uPCPA should be in conformity with the mtldef1form· of 'appllcatfon 'for relief contained in Form 1a.11a:, Okla.Ct.Crim.App.R. Oki.a.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1081-(0klahoma.. Court· of Criminal Appeals may· pre scribe the form ofpetition·for.postconviction.relief);.Rule 9.7(A)(l), (3),: Qkla.Ct:Crim.App.R•. (in: capital cases postconviction applica tions .shall,be·in accordance· with ·Form 13~lla; the .application shall :be:in substantial compliance with.Form !13.lla). -.The required contents.ofthe application.for relief in.a.capital case are set forth in Okla.Stat~Ann.:tit. 22, .§-1089(C)(2) lillld Rule 9;7(A)(3), Okla.Ct.Crim.App:R. ,·: . · ._r:·· , , ... 507 § 39:27 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF § 39:27 Oklahoma UPCPA--Codified as Oklahoma - ; · : Statutes Annotated, .Title ·22, §§ .1080 to.1089- · § 1089-Statute of limitation~Capital cases.. Under the Oklahoma UPCPA, in adeath sentence' case, there is a statute of limi~ations that provi~es, in "Okla.Stat.Ann ..tit .. 22, §' 1089(D)(l), thatthe application fof postconviction relief submit ted to the ·oklahoma Court of Ctiminal Appeals must be filed .within 90 day$ from the date the state's brief on the direct 'appe.al is filed or, ~fa reply brief is filed, within 90 days from the tiling ·of 'that brief on the direct· appeal; see also ·Rule ·9. 7(A)(2), O~a.Ct.Crim.App.R. (imposing identical time ~~ation). · : · : •, ; § 39:28 ··Oklahoma UPCPA-Codified as Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, Title 22, §§ 1080 ·to -1089..- · § 1089..-.Statute of limitationS-.:..Capital case~ , ; Waiver of u.ntimely claims · ·' i ., · In a death sentence case subje~t to Okla.Stat.All~. tit. 22, § 1089, all grounds for r~lief that were available to the appJicant before the 1.ast da~e on which. an application could be. timely filed, but not included in a timely application, sh.all be deemed waived, and no application may be amended or supplemented after ·expiration of the· 90 day limitation period on the filing of applica tions; and any amended or supplemented application filed after the ·90 day period shall be treated as a subsequent application. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1089(D)(2);. Rule ·9.7(B)(l), (3), Okla.Ct.Crim.App.R. Furthermore, if the petition for postconvic tion relief is untimely or if a subsequent petition for postconvic tion relief is :filed, then neither the merits of the ·petition can be considered nor relief granted· unless the petition satisfies the stringent requirements of Okla.Stat.Ann. t~t. 22, § 10~9(D)(8)(a), (b); see also Rule 9.7(G), Okla.Ct.CriJ:n.App.R. § 39:29 Oklahoma UPCPA~Codified· as Oklahoma · . .. Statutes Annotated, Ti~le 22,. §§ 1080 to 1089- . § 1089-Cap~tal cases-Proceedings in OklahQm.a .Court ~f Criminal App~~~ · · With respect to death sentence cases subject to Okla.Stat.Ann. tit.· 22, § 1089, ·nothing in § ·1089 requires· the state to file. an answer or other response to· the petition for postconvictioh relief filed in the Oklahoma Court: of Criminal Appeals. Rather~ once the petition. is filed, that court "shall review"· the ·petition, Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22~ § 1089(D)(4)(a), "to determine.whether (1) controverted, previously unresolved factual issues material to the legality· of the applicant's confinement exist, (2) whether the ap plicant's grounds were or could have been previously raised, and 508 OKLAHOMA § 39:30 (3) whetherreliefmay:begranted under this act}~· Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, §· 1089(D)(4)(a)(l) to ·(3); .see also Rule. 9.7(E), Okla~Ct.Crim.App.R. If the. court answers ·any one of. these ques tions in the- negative, the procedures to be followed are set forth in .Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1089(0)(4)(b). On the other hand,.if the court finds that controverted, previously ,unresolved factual issues material to the. legality of the applicant's confinement .exist and that the other .requirements of Okla.Stat.Anm. tit. 22, § 1089(D)(4) are satisfied, it ."shall enter an ·order ta the district court that imposed the sentence designating the. issues .of fact to be resolved and the method by which the issues shall be resolved'." Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22; · § .1089(D)(5); see also Rule. 9~7(0)(5), (6); Okla.Ct.Crim.App.R .. The district ·court may riot on; its own ·permit any alterations in the. issues. remanded -to it, and the .Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals retains jurisdiction of a case ·remanded to a district court. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, ·§· 1089(D)(5); see also Rule 9.7(D)(7), Okla.Ct.Crim.App.R. The procedures·then to be followed in the district court are set forth in Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1089(D)(6). Under the procedtires and in accordance with the time limits set forth .in Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1089(D)(7), either party may seek review·in: the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of. the. district. court's determination of the issues remandeCl ~Y th~ Oklahoma· Gourt of Criminal Appeals; see also Rule .9. 7(F), Okl.a.Ct.Cpm.App.. R.· It no such tim~ly review is sought, the Oklajioma Court of .Criµrinal Appeals may, adopt. the findings of the district court and enter _an order within 15 days of the time for seeking review; if timely ~eview is sought, the Okla homa Court of Criminal Appeals shall issue an opinion in the case within 120 days of the filing of the response brief or at the time the direct appeal is decided . .Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. ·22, § 1089(D)(7). § 39:30 Oklahoma UPCPA~Codified as Oklahoma Statutes ADDotated, Title 22, §§· 1080 to- 1089- .. § 108~Right to counsel · · · . ·, ' ' ' ' ~ . ' -There· is a right to counsel in Oklahoma UPCPA proceedings~ Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1360(A), (B) (the Oklahoma· Indigent Defense -System shall represent indigents in' 'proceedings for post conviction relief in all capital cases; in noncapital cases, the System shall not be appointed to represent indigents Jn proceed ings for postconviction relief; pr~vided, however, the System may represent indigents in postconviction proceedings if the represen tation is related to another-pending casein which the System has been appointed, or the proceeding is necessary to obtain an' ap peal out of time on· behalf of a· System client in a case to. which the System 'has been properly appointed); Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 509 §·99:80 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF 22, § 1082 (if: the applicant,for .postconviction relief.is.:unable· t9 pay court costs and expenses~ of representation, counsel necessary in representation shall be .made ·available .to'.·:th~ ·applicant after the.filing .. of the· application on a finding by the. court· that such ·assistance is necessary to provide ·a fair determination of mentori ous·; ·claims)vOkla.Stat~Ann~ tit. 22, .. § l089(B) (the, Oklahoma Indigent Il>efe'nse• System· shall t~pres:ent aU indigent defendants iii~: capitaLcases seeking· postcon:viction relief tipon appointment by the :appropriate district~ court· after a he'aring determining .the indigency;. of: any such defendant; when the Oklahoma· Jndigent Defense Systeni..~ 'or -another: attorney ,has been appointed to -repre.,. sent ian jndigerit defendant irf an .application for postconviction relief, .. the: Clerk~ of the"Court, ofCriminal Appeals shall include: tin .its, notice ta the: :district, court .clerk,. as requdl'ed. by Section J054 of this 1title;·that an: additional certified. copy. of the appeal irecord is to be transmitted to the Oklahoma -Indigent Defense System or the other· attorney). . i; '. ,_ · ~'. i , :. •.• ·: r~ .·. . . 1 . ' : §. 89:31 ·· Oklahoma UPCPA--Codified as Oklahoma· '. · Statutes Annotated,"Title;22, §§·iOSO to.108~ + ·.i · · · ; . , : ·· .§· 108~Newly ·discovered.evidence ~( .in~Qcence.. ·. Ne~ly discovered ·evidence of innocence· is ·a ·gi-ourid ~for UPCPA relief.~ Okla.Stat.Ahn. tit. 22, § 1080(dY(relief'available on· ground that there exists evidence of material ·facts, ·nqt"previously pre sented 'and· ·heard;· that requires vacatiOn· of-the conviction: or sentenc'e : in: ·the interest of ·justice};.· Rule , ~··l(A); Okla:ct.'Crim~App.R (regulating ·m:otions for a-new trial based on newly: disco~~red evidence; of irinoc~nce in UPCP~ _proceedings). · §' 89:32 Oklahoma UPCPA~<:!odified:as ·Oklahoma . . Statutes Annotated, Title 22, §§ · 1080 to 1099...;.;: . :· ~ § 1089-Capital cases-Issues that may be raised . . ·. . : . . . : ...... ·: . • ...... ~- s . ., ·. In deat.h· sep.teric.e cases subject· to Okla.Stat.Arin. tit: ·22, § 1089, ·tlie only iSsu·es that. may bEi 'r~~s~a· ·4te thos~· that: (1) were not and could not have· been raised; in- a.· direct appeal; and (2) _support .a ~onclusioi;i_e~thez: .that the. outco~e of-~he trial would have been different but for; the errors or. that the .defendant is fa~foally :fopocent .O~a.~~at,~n._;-i;i~~ ·~~.' § i0~9cc)... · '. ··... :.. J./· ,': §, 89:~~ , ·o~iahQ~a. ~cP.A~C~~~ed ~s Q~aho~a .· ~ '_, : ·' . .. Sta~utes Aim,.otated, Title. 22, §§. 1080. to 1089.~ · . · · ·§. ;~~89-:Capi~al ·ca~~~I~eff~ctive ~0Uii.s~1 ·c1fµ~~ ·, .. In: d~ath. sent~nce ca~e~ ·-subject·r_to .Qk.J:a.Stat~Ann ...tit. _2.2, §:1089, all claims of ineffective· assistance ,of counsel.shall-~be govei:ned by clearly ·established law as" determined by the United States Supreme Court. Oklasi~t.Aµ.n. tit. 22,:. § 1089(DX4)(b). · .,· j , '/ 510 OKLAHOMA §.39:36 § ·89:34 ·.. Oklahoma .UPCPA-Codified.as· Oklaltoma. Statutes Annotated, .. Title ·22; §§ 1080!to11089- . § 1089-Capital·.cases--Discovery .;":·,!,· .;·· ·_-.: . Jn a death. ~entence, ~ase stjbj~bt to.·9~la.'Stat'.A~p. .. tit. 22, § lOS~, only. li~ited ·.discove~ 1iS .p~~itteQ. :~nc;l~()nly ·as.;autho r,ize~ py th~· OW..$oma ·omg~. of Ctjm,irial i\J>peals~'OkJ,a.Stat.Ann. tit,. 22, "§-T089(D)(3);~~hle,~.1CQ)(2) .to (4), Oltla.dt~.Crim.App.R. Requests.for discov:ery:mustibeJiled·be(ore or at.the tim.e:the pe tition. for postconviction"·relief. is •filed~ , Rule ·9 .. 7CD)(2), Okla.Ct.Crim.App.R. '. ~~ _."_ , , ~ : < - .~·,., . ~· t'~"'·',. ' -~ ·~ .. ,\ .. '~_1.,1 ·.: \ §'89:35 :..Oklahoma UPqP~-Codifted as Qkl~om• <., ·• ' · · · StatUtes Aniiotated'' Utle 22, 1 §§ 1080 to 1089-. ··)I • • § 1ose:.-Text ·of§ 1089 ··: ·: ·f: · · ·,... ~ · .: · · .. § ioso. . Capit~ ·cases-P~~tcon~ction !relief~Grounds for appeal ·, · : -. ~;' '. ~.1 A. The application for ·postconv,iction relief of a :defendant. who is under. the: sentence of. deatll iodine or niore counts and whose death. sentence has been .affirmed or is being! reviewed by the1 Court :0f Criminal Appeals iJ;l ·acc6rdance with the ~provi sions of;Section 701.13 of ·Title 21.ofthe: Oklahoma, Statutes · 'Shall be· expedited as p1mvided. ih: this sectipm The ·provisions of ···this section 'a.lsota:pply to noncapital:.sentences in ;a,·case in which the defe:ndant .has received one· or :more 1sentences of :death. . _ ._, : _ ·1:·1. • · _ .. , · :-: B. The Oklahoma :Indigent Defe:r;ise ·System shall. represent , . all indigent -defendants. in: capital· cases: seeking postconviction relief upon appointment by the appropriate district .court .after a he,azi~g .qeteqni,I).j~g. ~)J.~. in4i,ge.~cy of any ~\lch ~ defendant. ·~en t~e. Oklahoma. Indig~nt. Pefense System Qr another at- . ~r11~y ;has l;>.ee;o. .appojnteq tp; I:"~pre~eq~ an i;n(ijgent def~ndant ~ 1.·in an .fipplicatiqn: (or p_osw9~yic;tionj r~ljef, Jh~; C.le~k. ~f the Pourt o~ Qrixajna~ :Appe~·s s9-811: ~nclµp~ i~. its noti~e to th~. district . court .clerk, ~~ reqllired ,by.. Section 1054 of this title,· tl;lat an . a4ditio;nal ,~e~i~eq copy .. of,th~, BrPBe~l.recordJ~,tp,be transmit ted tp; the·. Okl~honia IndigeDit Defense. System .or the '.other ,:;.,· · ; , : . '. . ·,:· . . ·. - •. : :;. .·~ttorney. · - · . · . , .. 1 '.·~·. C.·. The only issu~.s: tli~~ ;may Qe. raised. .in. ·an :~PPli~ation for . postconviction. relief are those .that; . '·:: ··!·"1 The applicant sh.all state in· the application specific. facts · , · explai:ning· as to .. eaeh claim why it _was~ not• 01r could not have .been ·raised in a::dmect.appeal and:how.it·supports· a·conclu ;Sion that the ioutcome of ithe :trial .would havej been· different but for the errors or .that the defendant, i~ fa~i.uallyt inAocent. 1. 1Were .not and c9µld n<~t: ~av~ .been, raised in a direct appeal; and - · (! 1 5ll § 39:35. STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF .2~ ·Support a~:con~lu~it?ii'·either that the outcome of the tnal would. have been different but for. the errors or that the defendant is· factually innoeent. D. 1. The application for po$tconviction relief shall be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals withih ninety (90) days .from the qate the appellee's brief on direct aQpeal is filed or, ·if a''.feply brief is filet!i'DinetI (90) d~ys from tlie filing of that . reply brief with the vourt of Criminal Appeals on tlie direct appeal. Where the appellant's original brief on direct appeal has been·filed prior to November l, 1995, and no application for postconviction relief has been filed, al!y application for postconviction relief must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within one ·hl11:ldred eighty (180) days of November 1, 1996. The Court of Criminal Appeals may issue orders establishing briefing schedules 'or enter any other orders nec essary to extend tlie time limits under this section in cases where·the original brief on direct appeal has been filed·prior to November 1, 1995. . 2. All grounds for relief that were· available to the ap plicant before the last date on which an application could be timely .filed not included :in. a timely application shall be deemed· waived .. No application may be amended,. or supple mented after the time .specified under this section. Any amended. or supplemental application filed after the time ·'·Specified under this section.shall be treated by the .Court of ··Criminal Appeals as: a subsequent application. 3. Subject to the specific limitations of this section, the Court of Criminal Appeals may. issue any orders as to discovery or any·other orders necessary to facilitate postcon- viction review. · · · 4. All claims of ineffecti\'Te as&is~ance Qf counsel shall be gove!ned by clearly e.stab1ished'law as ·determined by the United States Supreme CoUrt. If the· Court of Criminal Ap peals determines that· controve~ed~ previously unresolved factual issues material to the l'egality of the· applicant's confinement do not exist~ or that the claims were or could have been preViotisly raised, or that relief may not be granted under this act, and enters an order to that ~effect, the Court shall make :findings of fact and conclusions of law or may or der the' parties· to file proposed findings of fa.ct arid conclu sions of law for the Court to consider· on· or before a date set ·by the Court that is not later than thirty .(30) days after the date the order is issued. The Court of Criminal Appeals· shall make appropriate written :findings of fact and conclusions of law not later than fifteen (15) days after the date the parties ·· ' · filed proposed findings. i ' , • · · a. The· Court of CrimiiiaVAppeals shall review the ap plication to determine: 512 OKLAHOMA "/, § 39:35 1 I: .'. • ... (1) whether", controverted, previously unr~solved ·.factual issues material to .the legality of the applicant's · confinement eXist, · . -(2) ·whether the applicant's ~grounds were- or could have been previously rai~ed, and · ' ·· · · :. · ·' ·('3) whether relief may be gr~ted wi4er this act. . : ··· b.· For purposes.of. this subsection, ·a ground .could not ]ia~e 'been preVioµsly raised if: '· : . ' ! ' · • . :· (1) · it is a claim· of ine:ffective assistance of trial counsel ; , I ', '·. involving a factuaf basis• that was not ascertainable ' i ! - through tli~ exer.cise of r~asqnable diligence oil or before .. ; the time of'the cllie.ct appeal, or'· · · · .. .· :(2) .it is a claim contafaed in an ori~nal tjmely ap . . plication for .postconviction ~elief rel~ting to ineffective . .. assistance of appell~~e counsel...... · ...·5. If the Court of Cri~~nal Appeals determines that . controverted, p~evjou~ly. u~esolved .factqal issues ma~rial . to. the legality of .t~~ aP.plic~nt's confinement dQ ~xjst; and th~t, the ~pplica~ion meets. the other ·requirements of paragraph 4 of this subsectioµ., the:_.Court ~pall enter. an or ·der to.the district co.urt th~t imposed the .senten.ce designat ing. the .i~sues :of fac,t to be :reso~y~d and th~ .method by.which . th~ is~u~s shall be J;"esolvf!!d. .· . . The distri~t court. shall not. -permit any amendments or supplements to the· issues remanded by the Court ·of Crimi nal Appeals ·except upon motion to :and order of the Court of Criminal f\ppeals subject'. to the limitations of this section. The Court of Criminal. Appeals shall retain jurisdiction of a~l cases remanded pursuant to this act. 6. ·The.district attorneys~office shall have twenty (20) days after the issues are .remanded to' the district ·court ·within · · · · whieh·to file a response. The district court may· grant one extension of twenty (20).·days for good cau.s·e sho\Vn and may issue any orders necessary to facilitate postconviction review ·pursuant to ·the· remand -order of the• Court of Criminal Appeals.· Any· applications for· extension beyond the twenty (20) days shall be presented to the Court ofCriminalAppeals. If the ~istrict court determines that an evidentiary hearing · · should ·be held, that hearing: ·shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date that the state filed its response. The :district court shall file its decision together with findings of fact and conclusions ·of law ,with the Court of Criminal Ap . , peals within forty-five (4&) :days from the date that .the state filed ·its .response or:within forty-five (45) ·days from the date of the conclusion of the evidentiacy hearing~ · ' , : · ··' 513 §.39:35 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND"REt1EF · . 7.. · .Either .party .may; seek review by the Court of Criminal ,. . App~als 1 of 'the· district co.urfs· determination :Of the issues remanded by the Court of Criminal Appeals within ten (10) .. - . d~ys. frQm the .entry qf j'1d..gmen~~ $uch .p~y shall file a no tice of intent to seek revfow and· a. designation of record in the. cli~~rict court .;within, t~~. (10). days from tpe entry of judgment. Acopy· of the. not~ce ~of intent· to· s~e~ reyiew and ' the· de·signation of the tecord shall be served on, the court repo~~er, the petitioner, 'the 'district· attorney~ ·arid 'the At- . torriey. Qeneral~ and shall 'be file4 ~th~ the CoUrl 9f Criminal Appe~ls. A petition in error sh~ll be. fil~d1 with.".the. Court of Cririlinal Appeals by ~~e ·party .ee~lti~g ~r~\i~w Wi~lµn thirty (30) days from the entry of judgment. ff an evid~ntiary hear- , iiig ·was ~held~. the c<;>,urt report~r' shaU prepare' and file all -transcripts necessary· for· the·. appear· within siXty ·( 60) days from the date the notice and designation of record are filed. The petitiQner's brief-in.:cliief shall be· filed within forty-five (45) days·from:th~·'da.te'the transcript-is filed in the Coilrt of Criminal Appeals 'or; if no ev'identiary hearing was held, ·Withhi forfy-five (45) days from the, date of the filing· of the notice~. The respondent shaff'have twenty' '(20);'days' 'thereaf ; .· ter. to fil;e' ·a respon~e brief. The distric~ 'court clerk .. 1shall file : the· records· on.:· appeal With "the Court' of Criiriinal Appeals on or before the date the petitioner's brief-in-chief is:· due~ The Court. of Criminal A.ppeals shall :issue· :an opinion in ~the case . . Within one" hundred twenty (.120.) days 'Of the filing of. the re sponse brief or at the. time the· direct appeal is decjded. If no review.is sought withiri the.time·specified in·.this section, the Cou.rt,·of Criminal Appeals~ ,may adopt the findings of the district court and ~ntei: an lorde.r within fifteen (1.5). clays of ··:the time.specified for,seeking reyi.ew 9r may9~der.additional · priefing'by t~e parties. In ·~o,event ·shall the CoUrt of Crimi- ~~ Appeals ..~~t .Postcon~ct~ori~ relief.before: ~Vin'.~ ~he);tate ... ·Co:l:!)rtum~ to respo~~ to. any;~~ all cJ~s r,~e4 to the :. . _ 8~ . If an original application. fol;" :PO~t~.on~iqtiqp. r~l.ief is _ unti:roely or if ~ subse,quent applicati~n foJ;": pos.tconvfotion I'.ellef, is ·filed. after. filing 3n original .:~pplica.tion,; th~ Court of Orimiµ,a~ Appeals iµ~y n:ot .. consjder. the in~rits; -0f or· •grant relief,b~~e4 .. on :the. subsequent· or. un,tjmeJy original applica- tion, l,Jµ}ess: · : .. ,: .. · . ·i. . • .. . ' I a. the •application: contains claimS and' issues~ that ;have · ·:::not ,been and; could not; have been ·presented previously in a: timely original, application.. or in: a previously considered ·application filed under this seetion, .because the ,legal, basis for the claim, was unavQ.ilE;ible,. or· .. : . , ~; . · 514 OKLAHOMA~ § 39:36 - I · (1) the applic.ation, contains sufficient spec\tic facts .- establishing th~j; ! the .c_wjep.t claims· and is~ues. have. not ~. , .. · and co~ld .riot :ha~e peen .p:r~s~nted pr~viously. in :a, timely originaJ apP.lica#pp; or... in .a: pr~viQusly.,c9nsidered -~P!" .•·; plicatiol;l: ,filed. up.der.. this sectio~, becaµse~ the factua.l . ·.basis for ._the· C}aiµt, was .unayai}a_ple ~8 1 it: \fa~ Il.Qt , .• · 1 .. • ,·:: .ascertainable. throµgh.the exeriCise tOf re~sonabJe dili~ .:'·'" : .geµ~e·on.,or l;>efo.re thE\t date, ..and ,.. · · . (2). ;the;.. facts: underlying the claini, .if. proven. and · ); -~.. : viewedin 1light·t>f the ~vidence'as.a,whole, would be suf- 1 , , , • • • • •. '.-. ficient tO establish; by -clear arid convincing ·evidence that, • n. butj for the alleged,error, no reasonable fact,findeit.would ...... ~ ha'.ve1 fo~d the· applicant guilty,of the .underlying :offense or would have rendered. the penalty of death. 5. For purposes of thi~ act, a legal basis of a claim is un avaiYable ··on ·or before·· a ·date described ·by this: subsection if th~ legal pasis: · · :' • ~·~: : f.. .. :. • , ;·. _:. . : : ' ..: a.- wfi~' not. recognize'd-'by ctr" could not ha~e been reason- ably formulated·from a:fib.al. decision· of ·the United States Supreme Court,· a. court) of: appeals of the United·States, .or ;ra•·court of appellate j¢scliction ofi,this stat~·on;or·before . ' t~~t date,; or . : .· ...... : b. is a new rule -of constitutional l~w that was· given ret- . r~activ.e effect, by· the United: States· Supreme Comit! or a . court of appellate jurisdiction of tliis ;state and -had not . , been announced c;>n-~r before that date.: . i : · .E. All· matters: not specifically governed. by 1the ·provisions iOf .this, se~tion shall be~ subj.e.ct to :the ·,provisions of the~ .. Post .Conviction, Procedure Act~" .If'the provisions of this act ·confilct 1 ·., with the. :provisions -of.. t'he Post-Conviction Procedure. Act; ·the = provisions. of this act shall govern. : .. , · , · " " · . ; .1 § 89i36 Oklahoma uPCPA~odified as'Oklahoina· . , . Statutes Annot~ted, Title 22, §§ 1080 'to 1089---; r, . §: 1089-Proceedings not subject to proVi~ions d(' . § 1089--Case law · · · · · ... · ' .· •l:. ·: \ · ...... ; . • , : , '. ~ ! l i) For case. law.on Oklahoma's UPCPA-in proceedings_·not.sU;bje~.t tp the pxoyisions of Okla.Stat.Ann• tit. 22, § 108.9;.see, ·e.g., H.unt~r v. Beck~ 244 Fed. App~. :s4a~c1oth. CU-:· 2007) (th~. ques~iol.l ..<;>f wheth.er .a state parole state:te hast c~e~ted an expeqtation ·. J~ r.eleas~' s~ch. that a liberty inter~st pas be~n: cre~ted is one_ th~t piust be ~swer~d on a cas~-by-case; ba~f$; where. the. st~te -s~t ute .leaves-the parole decisi01~! t.Q ;the qiscretion of ·the parple board, no: ~xpectat~o~s. of ,fre~cl.om fro~ inlpri~onmeQt can arie1e ._and no libei;ty interest has been qr~ated;_ liabeas petitioner did.. not h~y~ 515 § 39:36 STATE PosrcoNVIcTioN REMEDIES AND RELIEF libertydnterest in parole, as :required .for claim that parole board's refusal to send its recommendation· denying parole to governor violated due process;·petitioner did not have constitutional or otherwise inherent right tQ. parole b~fore expiration of sentence, and· state· parole· system was discretionary and there were no statutorily mandated grants of parole); Williams v~ State, 2004 OK CR 8, 87 P.3d '620 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004); as corrected, (June 9, 2004) (a person who believes that his parole has been unlawfully revoked· is permitted to challenge .that revocation through ·postconviction proceedings; such a· postconviction action may be commenced once the Governor has formally revoked pa role; the proper venue· for a postconviction action challenging a revocation· of parole is the county in which the person's·judgment and sentence on conviction was imposed). § 39:37 Oklahoma UPCPA-Codified as Oklahoma ... Statutes.Annotated, Title 22, §§ 1080 to 1089- § 1089---Capital cases subject to § 1089---Case law For case law-on Oklahoma's UPCPA with respect to death row inmates required to filed their postconviction petitions directly in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals under Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22,· § 1089, see, e.g., Murphy v. State, 2012 OK CR 8, 281 P.3d 1283 (Okla. Crim. App~ ·2012) (there is no new right to appeal established when a c~pital murder. defendant- is granted postcon viction relief and allowed a· remanded jury determination on the question of mental retardation; instead, the postconviction ap plication remains ,pending with the Court of Criminal Appeals, and .errors alleged 'to have occurred during the jury -trial on mental retardation are reviewed by, the Court of Criminal Ap peals through supplemental briefing after the trial court has filed its findings of fact and conclusfons of law in the same manner as errors raised on direct appeal); Coddington v.· State, 2011 OK CR 21, 259 P.3d 8a,3 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (claim of ineffective as sistance of trial counsel is appropriate for postconviction review if it -has. a factual basis that could not have been ascertained through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before the time of the direct appeal; claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel· may be· raised for the first time on postconviction review and requires· petitioner to show that ·counsel's performance was deficient, and that he· was so prejudiced by that performance that he was deprived of a fair trial with a reliable result; finding· of prejudice requires a showing of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have ·been different; petitioner was required ·to show that counsel's representation· was· unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that ·the challenged action could not be 516 OKLAHOMA § 89:37 considered sound trial strategy; strong presumption exists that~ where counsel focuses on some_ is.sues· to: the exclusion, of others, this reflects a strategic dec~sion: rather. than ~neglect; Court of Criminal Appeals does· not consider on,post.conviction any errors in. previous proceedings which were not raised· in the, postconvic tion. application itself; petitioner failed to. show by: ·clear· and convincing evidence materials sought to ·be·.introduced had.,or were likely to have support in.law and:·fact to be relevant to ·an allegation raised. in application for,. capital !postconviction, ..relief; as .was required to be entitled· to discovery or; ·~n .eyidentiary hearing oil his claims of.ineffective· assistance· of counsel); ·DeLozier v. -Sirmons, 531 F.3d 1306.~(lOth'.Cir.'2008} (death sentence case; habeas petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance· or trial coilnsel was· procedurally ·barred;where it had.not·been .raised: on ·direct appeal;· Oklahoma procedural-bar rule was an adequate basis for denying habeas review, even ·though the claim··of;trial-counsel ineffectiveness could :not i.be resolved on the trial r record alone, since the· state provided a ·procedural mechanism. to supplement the record); Harris v. State, 2007 OK CR 32, 167 P.3d·438;(Qkla. Crim. App.· 2007) (Harris has· not shown· by clear and·convincing evidence the materials sought·to be introduced have or are likely to have support in law and fact to be relevant to an allegation raised in the application for postconviction relief; he also fails to show why additional ·discovery is necessary); Cummings v: Sirmons, 506 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2007) (although the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is technically unexhausted, we readily conclude the claim is procedurally ·barred; it is beyond dispute that, were Cummings to attempt to now present the claim to the Oklahoma state courts in a second application for postcon viction relief, it would be deemed procedurally barred); Richie v. Sirmons, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (N.D. Okla. 2008), judgment '.aft'd, 599 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2010) (death sentence case; petitioner never fairly presented to the OCCA that portion of his ineffective assistance claim based on counsel's failing to discover evidence of co-defendant's early statements, police coercion in obtaining co- . defendant's official statement, and police doubts ·about the state's theory; although petitioner could be required to return to state court ·to raise this claim in a· second postconviction application, the OCCA routinely applies a procedural bar to such claims un less the· petitioner provides sufficient reason for his failure to raise the ~laim in an earlier proceeding; this claim would be subject to a procedural bar in the state courts, .therefore it would be· futil~ to require petitioner to ·exhaust this claim; because exhaustion would be futile, the·portion~ of petitioner's claim relat ing to ineffective assistance of trial counsel is ·not .barred by the exhaustion requirement); Stouffer ·v. State, 2007 OK CR ·4, 154 517 § 39:8'7 STA'iE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF P.3d 88 (.Okla. Ctj.m .. App.~ 200.7) (~defendant convicted·of capital murder,and sentenced to: death1does -not, have. constitutional or · statutory right.to :re.present.himself.in .pos.tconwiction ·proceed':' ings;. while :this. court !-provides .the procedure for a defendant to se'ek self.. representatiOn on direct. appeal,.there·is no correspond ing· provision forrcapital .. postconviction applicants; there is no provision in :the. Oklahoma~ ·Constitution. requiring this court to allow a defendant to represent hiinse1£ i~ a capital postconviction proceeding;. by thew inature,.. postconviction appeals,, as collateral proceedings, !require.extra-record investigation, and review; the ~ted· grounds for :review: under. the .Oklahoma UPCPA require a person schooled in. the' law to detertnine and fashion arguments which.fit.within·the-,statutory limits; a person schooled in the.law is. better· able: to .fashion ,arguments which overcome: ·procedural bars.present-in collateral appeals; ·furthermore 1 ~the 'logistic~ of petitioner~s incarceration' make: it almost -impossible ior. him.to present ·a·,collateral attack on- his Judgment. and: Sentenc,e, becaus~·he.is,unable to investigate "newly .discovered evidence" or claims orineffective. trial or. direct appeal counselrall of which must be and "can be: investigated by the lawyers and. investigators of -the Oklahoma Indigent Defense.System, the.:agency.charged with representing: all indigent. capital postconviction applicants; our .decision is .driven by a desire _to best meet .the· interests of petitioner1·as'.well as the state; no one can deny that.p~titioner.is represented by extremely competent: and experienced. counsel, backed by·.a:whole agency, which in the experiences of .this.court, without doubt; has petitioner's .best interests in mind; represen tation by trained appellate postconviction counsel is of distinct benefit to .. pe.titioner· as well as this court; in holding :that petitioner may. not represent himself in this capital postconvic:" tion proceeding, we also hold that appointed counsel's Sept.· 15, 2006, motion to withdraw, which· was based .on the trial court's findings after the. hearing.· on. petitionar's motion to proceed·. pro se, -is denied); Harris v. State, 2007 OK CR 32, 1.67 P .. 3dA38 (Okla., Crim. App ..2007). (capital postconviction reliefLpetitioner failed to demoiis.trate prejudice from appellate counsel's ifailur~ to raise first-stage prosecutorial :misconduct as required for ·a find ing. of. ine,ffective ,assistance 1 of appellate counsel; petitioner~s claims that resentencing counsel was_ ineWective could have. been raised ·on the resentencing appeal and,. thus, were either barred or waived, in proceeding. on petition ·for capital. postconviction relief); ~Browni~g v. State, 2006 OK CR ·87,. 144 P.Sd 155 '(Qkla. Cri.In. App. 2006) :Con an application ·for postcon'1ction reJi~f,.-;this cour.t will not treat the postconviqtion process as a second 1app~al, and will apply the doctrines of res judicat;a and· waiver wher~La claim either .wa~, .. or could have ·been, raised in the petitioner's 518 OKLAHOMA . •' ••. _11 t §:39:37 direct appeal; petitioner waived·_;clailllS which· could have been raised on direct appeal); Murphy·v. State,'.·2005 OK CR 25, 124 P .. Sd:.1198 (Okla. Crim~ App. 2005).(UPCPA has always provided petitioners· ,with very'-limited grounds upon which to base a col lateral attack .on-: their judgments;. accordingly, cla:i;ms that· could have been raised jn ·previous 1-appeals but. were not ate· ·generally waived; claims raised on direct· appeal are res: judicata; § 1089 makes it more difficult forrcapital postconviction applicants to avoid procedural bars; we reject 'the claim that the crime oc curred in :Indian .cou11tcy and that therefore the, conviction was void for lack·.;of jurisdiction;· ·however, this· case is: hereby . remanded· to~ the trial court: for a jury trial on petitioner's mental retardation ·claim); Davis v:;State; 2005 OK CR 21~ 123 P~·3d 2·43 (Okla. Crim .. App. 2005) (this·court Will not consider issues. which were raised'<:m direct appeal·and are barred by·res judicata, o~ .is. sues· which have been. waived· because they could :have· been, but were not, raised on direct: appeal;rfor purposes of postconviction relief, a 'claim could not have· been previously r~sed if (1) it is· a claim of'. ineffective assistance· of trial:counsel involving a factual \ basis that ·was 'not ascertainable through the exercise ·of rea~on~ \ able 'diligence .on or before· the time of the direct appeal,- or'(2) it is a claim contained in an original !timely applicatio1Lfor- postcon• viction. relief relating to ineffective' assistance; rof appellate counsel; the· burden. is on fhe 1applicant to show: that ·his. ebtlm. is. not procedurally barred;· here, ineffective assistance of trial counsel clainis raised-in postcon~ction·petition not bar.red:where appellate corinsel:and: trial counsel were:the s~e);.Malicoat v. State,·2006 OKCR.25~ 137 R3d·'.1234-(0kla • .Criim1App~ ~006) (by statute,' this court_ has original jurisdiction over capital appellate filings after. the direct·:appeal· ha$· ended;. on •June·.5,. 2006, Malicoat filed in: this court ~an Objection. to :Setting of an ·Execu tion Date~oniJune iQ,:20()6; .Malicoat-claims.that' Oklahoma's le thal injection: .protoc~l:violates· the, Eighth· Amendment· :prohibi tion· against· cruel L;and; unu8ual puiiishment; he· argues that this . state's execution :procedure creates.~a substantial risk that he will consciously suffer or, experience excru¢ating pain during .the exe cution process; Malicoat claims. that· mistakes made during .the exec·ution process itselfmight lead to· drug adiniQ.istration failure, causing pain and_sufferirig;; he.. clairils .that Qklahonia's fai1ure·. to require specially trained' z;nedical. personnel heightens;the· likeli hood -that :such mistakes ·will· be .conlmi.tted; Malicoat also .clainis that the~: drugs :used· iit the 1 execution:.protocol ithemselves .cause pain and· suffering ·and Violate the Eighth .Amendment; Malicoat notes.that pending litigation in.the federal courts challe~ges Okl aho:qia's execution,protocol,: and asks this :court tn~stay any exe.. cution date until .that.. litigation-.has been· resolved; we have previ~ 519 § 39:37 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND REUEF · ously found. that' lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment, but have not specifically discussed Oklahoma's .par ticular method of execution; we· treat Malicoat's substantive claim, that to set an execution date would subject. him to cruel and unusual punishment, as a· subsequently filed application for capital postconviction revi~w;· if. Malicoat's claim is correct, then his legal sentence will be .carried out in an illegal manner, substantially violating both the United States and Oklahoma constitutions; this court has the authority ·to consider the merits of an issue which may so gravely offend a defendant's constitu tional rights and constitute a miscarriage of justice; under Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1089(8), and in the interests ·of justice, and considering the importance· of the principle of finality of sen tences, we·· reach the merits of Malicoat's claim and deny his request· to stay his execution date); Ochoa v. State, 2006 OK CR 21~ 136 .. P.3d 661.(0kla. Crim. App. 2006) (in a postconviction proceeding in a capital case, when this court has remanded· the matter for a Jucy determination on the factual issu~ of mental retardation, a petitioner must prove· mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence); Slaughter v. State,; 2005. OK CR 6, 108 P.3d·1052 (Okla. Crim~ App. 2005).(0klahoma's UPCPA is / not designed or intended to provide applicants repeated appeals of issues that have previously been raised on appeal or could I have been raised but were not; our focus under§ 1089(C)(2) is I limited to outcome determinative errors ·and factuaLinnocence claims; we find the 60 .days· provided in Rule 9. 7(G), Okla.Ct.Crim.App.R., to be a reasonable time period; the rule ad dresses postconviction applicants .filing ·subsequent applications; it is wholly reasonable to require these subsequent applicants to notify this court of previously unavailable legal or factual grounds s~rving as the basis for a riew issue within 60 days· that they are announced or discovered; once a timely .. application is filed, an extension of time to further develop. the application With added materials pertaining to the timely raised issue can be submitted to this court, which will then determine the merits of the· need for additional time on a case-by-case basis); Slaughter v: State, 2005 OK CR 2, · 105 P.3d 832 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (under § 1089(C)(l), only claims that were. not and. could· not have ·been raised in a .direct appeal will be considered; under § 1089(C)(2), should a petitiop.er meet this· burden;· this· court .shall consider the claim only if it supports a ·conclusion either that the outcome of the trial would have· been different. but for the errors or that the defendant is ~factually innocent;· :the a~endments to the capital postconviction review statute reflect· the legislature'·s intent to honor. and preserve the legal principle1 of finality of judg ment, and we wm·narrowly construe .these,amendments to ef- 520 ·OKLAHOMA § 39:40 fectuate ~hat-- intent; .given. the. newly refined and limited review afforded capital postconviction ·applicants, we .must. also ;empha size .the importance of. direct appeal as the mechanism for raising au ·po~entially m~ritorious claims; ·because the direct. appeal provides app.ellants their only opportunity to have this court fully r~v.iew all cl.aim~ of error whi~h might ar.gµably warrant reJief, ~e urge them to ~ais~ all such claims-at thatjuncture). §_;i9:38 Writ of hab~~- cori)us. The writ of'habeas corpus.:is an available postconviction rem edy· in· Oklahoma, notwithstanding a provision of the Oklahoma UPCPA, Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1080, under which the UPCPA, "[e]xcluding a timely appeal, encompasses and replaces all com mon law. and statutory methods ·of.challenging. a· conviction' or sentence.'?·However, ·as a result-.. of. enactment of~the. UPCPA in 1970, postconviction ·habeas corpus relief in Oklahoma· is limited ii). E?COpe. · · , · §.39:39 Writ .of ~;habeas ·corp~Statuto~y authorlz~d .. , , ~- .. : . ' ...... · The writ of habeas corpus is :statutorily ·authorized in Okla homa in Chapter ·23 ("Habeas Corpus") of Title 12 ("Civil Proce .. dure") of the Oklahoma Statutes, Annotated (Okla.Stat.Ann. ~tit. 12, § 1331 through § 1380). See also Rule. lO~l(A), Okla.Ct.Criin.App.R~ (this court may. entertain certain extraordi nary writs .which arise out of criminal matters; such extraordinary writs include writs ofhabeas corpus; this court will only entertain such writs· if .petitioner has .been denied relief in the .district court); ·Rule 10.6(C), Okla.Ct.Crini.App.R.; (the habeas petitioner has .the burden of establishing .. confinement is unlawful; in the· absence of an extreme. emergency, this cotirt will· not entertain an original application for a -writ of habeas corpus where such ap plication has not been presented to and refused by the district court of the county where petitioner is restrained; the writ of ha beas corpus has not been-·suspended·:or ·altered by the UPCPA so Jong a$ .th~ .$tatutory .appeal.proc~dur~s el).acte~ by the Legisla ture have been first e$austed;, t4e wnt Qf°habeas .corpµs is not an3 a\1thonzation to'.bypass.th~ statutory appea1 processj~, · § 39:40 .~n~ :of hitbea~ .corpus7-C~~s p~rntjtted_. to .h~~ .. · and.gr~t . , . 1 .. , ., .• 1. .,· ••. ', • : The .Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is both. constitution ally ari.d statutorily empowered to hear and grant habeas· corpus petitions,.and the district courts are· authorized-to hear and·grant such: petitions by statutory law. Okla.Const., art. 7, § 4 (the Okla homa Court of Criminal Appeals·,· in criminal .matters, shall have 521 §:39:40 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND· RELIEF power to issue, :hear and· determine writs: Qf habeas corpus; ·each of the judges Jo£ that .court sllall ·havtr power· toissu(:rwrits· of-ha- · beas •corpus. to :any·part of the state~ upon~petition by or on.beha1f of a_ny: perso'n held in actual custody and. make such writs return:~ abl~ before· himself, or before ·any· djstrict court· or· judge the.reof itt· the state); Okla-.S~at.Anil.. 1 tit. ·.~12, ·§ 1333 (writs of habeas corpus may·be 1granted·by any 1court:ofrecord in term·time, or' by a judge of any such court, either in term or va~ation). A petition for a writ of habeas·~orpus stibniitted tef a district cotµ"t must be filed in .the district courl· having territorial jurisdic tion. over· the. location where .the petitioner ·is restrained i of ltls ~r. , ' • . ! . . , ' v libe.LllJ - \ / .... _. •.. i-'-: . ,. J: • 1 ...... ' ...· ! 1\ ~. '. _,. ': ·§ 39:41 Writ· of h~beas :corpu8-Filings made directly in, · · · • .. 1 court.ofrcriminal appeals.regulated by Oklahoma ~. '·· :: . ,court··of.. CriminalAppeals·Rule 10:1·. Original petitions for a writ of habeas corpus filed directly in the O!d~ho91a. Co9r:t .of Ci1~inal ~ppeals R!e regulat~d by ~µl~ 10.1,"0kla.'Ct.Crim:Ap'p.R~ ·Generally, the Oklahoma Co)lrt1··of Criiriinal Appeals .will not! entertain a ..habeas petition unless.· the · petitioner previously' lfa.s ·unsuccessfully ·applied~ for habeas relief to ~the district court having jurisdiction over. the place .where the .petitioner is: restrained of: his '.~liberty. Rule 10.l(A), Okla.Gt.Crim.App.R. (this. court may ·entertain1 certain extraordi nary: writs which arise .out of criminal matters; .such extraordinary writs:include writs.of habeas corpus; this court.. willonly 'entertain such~ :writs. if .petitioner: has been denied relief. in the. district court};" Rule 10~6(C);,· 1 Okla .. Ct.Crim.App.R'. (in .the .. absence of :an extreme :emergency, .~this. court wiU not entertain an original ap plication. for a 'writ of.. habeas corpus. where such. application .has not 1been presented ·to and refused. by the' district court of. the · couney. where petitioner is· restraineq. · '· . ; ~ ' ' ~ :.; '.. :: ~ ~ .. ' §::39f42" ~·~Writ of habeas corpu-.Case law·; . , ·, 'For casei law on the· aval.laoility' bf OKlahoma hab~as'corpus as a.· postco~vfotioll remedy ·since .1970,' 'see, e~·~··' $tci:t~ v:. PoU?_ell, 2010 OK 40, 237 P.3ci1i779 (Okla:· 2010) (as an:mdividuat fol1nd to be insane and dangerous .. to the public peace and .. safety and conseqrientl~ committe·d:·to·' tlie Jcu.'stody·· bf the D~partmerlt··Of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services·under:22 O.S. 2001, § 1161, defendant'siconstitutionally aad statutorily assured1right to. pursue his discharge by ·habeas corpus ·is._also ·rec.o~zed ·in Title:43A of the Oklahoma.Statutes; no appeal can be;taken from a decision in habeas corpµS discharging a ipetitioner"restrainedi of his, liberty; nor. do , appeals. lie~ from orders. !i.n~·, habeas ·cor,pus 522 OKLAHOMA .§·39:45 remanding a party to custody; under· the:: CoilBititution, and statutes· of Oklahoma,. the· Supreme Court,;.Court':o~Criminal.Ap \ peais~ all other· appellate courts :.and ·the District. Courts· have concarrent originaLjurisdiction.·to hear. and determine,habeas corpus; an ·appeal· from .. an, order in .~abeasr cori>us remanding a petitioner is .not of. final ··and .conclusive character and, .con.Se quently is not reviewable under g~neral. law~allowing ap.peals from judgments; denial, Qf tit· '.petition for. hal;>ea~ .coi:pU:S dQes· not preclude a petitioner from. Jiling ~othe.r ~pp,lic~tjon· for habeas corpus as the' con'stitution~ "tjgb:t";of tliie ~t is. ~ot.~exhaus"ted by the first remanding order); ..Wilson v·. Joties, 430 'F:3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2005) (Oklahorlia 'prisoner seeking speedier release·· due to al leged errors ·in calculating earned or good-time .credits doe.s not have an adequate habeas remedy _under· Oklahoma law) .. · , . · • l ~ : ' \... .' •, \ • ' _.., I i ' l ' •• • \ '§39:43 Writ·otmandamu&·~·:.,.. ,,i '·' Another Oklahoma postconyiCtfon r~inedy 'is the ~dt of riuui<;lamus, which .may ·be :us~d. to. obtain a very_ .limited review of prison disciplin·~ proceedings (or dtj.e pro'c~ss! Violations~ ·For ·case ·1aw.!th~ use of ln:andainus/ see,· e.g., State ·ex rel. Mashburn v. Stice, 2012 OK CR 14, 288 P.3d.247 (Okht Crim. App .. 2012) '(requiremeri.te for' the issuance· ·of ·a.ri ·extraordinary writ are set forth in· 'Rule 10.1, Rules of tlie Oklahoma Oourt of Criminal Appeals;: for a writ of mandamus,· the· p~titiOner has the burden of establishing (1:) he; o·r she. has a clear legal right to the relief sought; (2) the respondent's refusal to :perform a plain legal duty not involving the exercise of dis'cretion; ·and (3) the ade- · quacy of: mandamus and the inadequacy::of other.. relief); '.Velasco v. Oklahqma Dept. 'of Corrections, 2011 OK CR ll; .25;3 P.3d 964 (Okla. Crim. App .. 2011) (a p~tition for writ.of mandamus can be utilized by inmates to allege that minimum due proce.ss. has been viQlated ill; prisQn disciplinary pi;oceeclings;th.at.resµl.t ID.t th~;,revo- cation- of earned credits). · :·i. . .. 1. § 39:44 . Writ qf e:rror ,~or~ noJ>is~ l • 1 '" • . -• • ' -' '• ' I ,···As:a result ofeha.ctment of the UPCPA, the writ of coram nobis is no longer a recognized· posticoD.viction· remedy in Oklahoma. -- 39:45 Jµdicial review of certain. prison disciplinary ' ;_'! proceedings . ;: ". i ( : j . ~ . T ' . ! : I . : I '. Another· Oklahoma postcoilViction remedy; created· by a.. 2005 statute, is--judicial."review; ;p\irsuant to 0kla. Stat. l\rin. tit. 57, § 564.1, of prison disciplinary proceedings that result in the revo cation: ·of, a: priso.n, :inmate~s earned credits;, The:· .prisoner may invoke this remedy·. only·! 'after exhausting· administrative 523 / §39:45 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF ( ( remedies.· A .prisoner seeking. to invoke this remedy must file his / petition seeking judicial review in the district court of the official residence· of the Department of Corrections within .ninety days of I the date. the petitioner is notified of the final Department of Cor- rections decision in the Department disciplinary appeal proc~ss. The only issue. in such a judicial '.. review. proceeding is whether I the inmate was· denied· due process., Okla. Stat.· Ann. tit. 57, § 564.1 prpvides:· r . § 564.1. Disciplinary. ,proceedings-J~di~ial review- . . .· Requirement-Procedures.· ' · A. In those instances· of prison disciplinary ,proceedings that result in the revocation of earned credits, the prisoner, ·after exhaustip.g administrative, rem~dies, may seek judicial ~e_view in the district court of the official residence of the Department I of Corrections. 'lb be considered by the. court, the_ inmat_e shall / meet the following require~ents: . i. rhe petition shall be filed within ninety (90) days of the date the petitioner is notified of the· final Department of Cor rections decision in the Depa'rtment disciplinary appeal proce~s. 2. The petition shall only name the Department of Correc tions as the _respondent. and .service sh~ll. be in accordance with the rules for. service under the laws. of this state. . 3. The ·petition shall be limited to the review of only one .disciplinary report and no other pleading is .allowed other than the petition and the answer. 4. The court shall not consider any pleadings from any intel"Vening parties and shall not stay the Dep·artment disciplinary process during the review of the misconduct · hearing. , · H. The answer of the Department shall be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the petition unless the··court orders a special report upon motion by. one party or upoµ its own motion. C. The petition shall assert that due process was not provided arid prove which element of due process, relevant only to a prison administrative disciplinary .proceeding, was .not provided by the prison staff. ·· :Q. The court shall only determine whether due process·;was provided by the revoking authority. In determining whether due proces~ was provided, the. court. shall det~rmine: · ' . . . , .... ,, · L Whether written notice of the charge was :prpvided to the inmate; · 2. Whether.the inmate·had a rilinimuin of-twenty-four (24) ' ·hours to prepare after notice of the charge;J: · · ·524 OKLAHOMA § 39:48 3. Whether the inmate was provided .an opportunity for a · hearing by a prison employee. not involved in bringing the charge; · ... :. 4~ Whether the inmate had theopportunity·to present rel evant documentary evidence; . . 5.' Whether the' inmate had.·th~· opportunity to ca~l wi't nesses when 'doing so would not Qe hazardou~ 'to institutional safety~ or burden correcti9nal goals;·· · · · · . .. 6. Whether the ~at~ w~· ·provide~ ~ written statement as to the evidence relied. oi;t &nd the .reasons for the discipline imposed; and · · · ·; · ' · · . 7. Whether any evidence ·eXisted..in the record. upon. which the hearing officer could base a finding of guilt. E. The judicial review a$ provided. in this section shall -~ot be an independent' assessment otthe credibility of any witnes.s or a weighing of the evidence, and there shall be no right to an error free. proceeding or. to .cq¢'ront. accµser$. Th~ only remedy to be provided:, if the· cot¢ ~~~els due~. process was not. provided, is an order to the Department to provide due process. · . F. There shall be· no recovery.allowed for;costs and fees, providing that frivolous petitiOns are; subject to· the sanctions provided by the laws-of this state•. !.' ( · .: G. Either party. aggrieved by: the ..~final order of the ,district court on a p~tition for judicial review may only. appeal the or der to the Oklahoma Court of CrimiD:~l. A.ppeaJ..s as set for;th: in the rules of such Court. · · · · · . '··,.,.. § 39:46 Judicial review of certain prison disciplinary proceedings-Ca~e law : ...... - : ···.: , For case law on§ 564.1~ s~e, e.g., jil~lasco'b~ Oklahom,q Dept. of 9or~ections, 2011 OK CR 11; 2~~'.~-~aa,·9.64.(0kla. Crim:.App. 20.11) (tl~e petition.. for judicia.lrreview ·of prison dis~iplinary proceeding shall assert that. d·ue procees· )V~s not pr9vid~~- and prpve which eleme.nt of due p~qcess,· ,rel~ya.D.t ·only to a. prison administrative discipli;nary pr~~~edin.g, w~s not. ,Provided' by the prison staff; with a petition that results in the revocation of earned credits, the fomate ·is not 'allowed to argue and the court shall not consider any issue not listed· in the; statutes ·governing judicial review; if the inmate has ·not proven ·any of the statutory due process factors have been' ·violated, and there is some~ evi dence in the written statement prepared by the' hearing officer to support the disciplinary findings,judicial review is at an· end; re vocation of 365. days of good-time credit·for violation- of prison . 525 § 39:46 STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND ,REUEF regulatiOns based :on·shank found ini..prisoner's boot did not violate due process, despite· prisoner's claim .that Department of Corrections never offered proof to support claims that· surveil lanc~. c~er~ wa~ only n;i.oni:tori~g device and that th~e.. was no videotape to substantiate prison~r's ·Claim that SOm~.ope. else placed shank in his J>oot; prisoner .never. raised claim about surve~~lance c~era hefo;re h~~tjng. 91Jicer, pfisoiier~ presen~d no . evidence to contrary, and._ th~re~·.wa~ soID;e evidence to support finding of violation; only requirement with regard to the evidence is··that ther~· i~;some eVideiice, fn the·'record upon which tlie hear- irig officer'cohld base a'fhiding'of guilt):· ·. · · . l §·39:4"1· •·Postconvictioil DNA'testmg statute-Oklahoma Statutes,'Title;22, § 1373 ~ ·' .. · ")Oklahoma has .a· 1 postcon~c.tion DNA testing statute, en~cted 1 i1i'2013r ··. · ·· ·;~'·, ·, ··. ·.· .. •..: •• , ; • :.~': • • ,·:.~ •. • ..... • ••• ·-: ••• , •• • !. '. :~ ! I f • , ' i t·• §'89:48 ·PostconViction DNATefJting Statut~Oklahoma . . .·. ·· '.;Statutes:·Title:22;1§ 1313-Text of§;1S73 . _. -. · · ·:.·-. ~ ~ ... l> :~ /;_;·, -, ~·:: ..•. · ,:··-~~.. , ~ ..:..r~: .,.: .:.· • • · •• . '. R~pbtc~ng; '.a pr~viou.~ s~~~u~~'! .QWah~rµa's pp~~co~~c;tio~ PNA testing statute 'Yas,~n~~ted inr291~.:~t p~ovides: :!.-:· § 1373. Short title-Postconviction DNAAct, ; · · ; ·: · ~ .. This act·shall:·be known and:may bE:rcited:asthe "Postcohvic tiori1DNA-Act~"·.1 · · : . I . : . i~v~stiga'.tidµ .. or (#iay ~easonably be; u~ea to•. incriminlilte ·'.or · .: ': ~x~hlpate '~y~p.erso1(for. ~n ·~ffense arid that niay be suitable . · for·~re:h~ic DN~·testfog. This 'def4Uti0ri applies ~hether the ·'. ~ '.#ia~p~: was c~tal~~~~ ~e_p~ately ~c~~~~g, put n~t lirirl~~d · · to, on a· swab, a slide 9r on apy other evtdence; · · ·· · 0 I ! ' ~2~'.;"i>NA"; m.~ans'pe~~b~nuclei.~ acid; . ' . ·'·. . •I' • .-._•· \ • • _ • , 1 _ • .l'i(:-, •• • • 1 :.3.::~fDocwllBnt"· or ~'documents" means:~any :tangiblei thing , i ... .upon which\any expression, communication ov representa ·, tion·.. bas been recorded by any·means.and includes any writ -.. · ing,, electronic1.'Writing, .reco:rding, drawfo.g, map, :graph! or ·.... · char.t, photograph' and .other. data compilation. in the act~al · i or ·const~uctive. p.ossession,, custody; care or. control. ofi Jthe 526. I OKLAHOMA . '·' § 39:48 go:vernment whi~hrpert~ :directly.or indirectly to any mat- .ter relevant; to· the issuesrin a criminal case;· and.· · 4. ·i"Guardian of a.coilvicted~person'? means;a person who is the legal guardian of the convicted person, whether the legal relationship exists because ofthe. age. ofthe: ~onvic~d"person 'J . or b~~aus~ of the physical.or :µientaJ inGOU\Pete'.9CY of the '.convic_~e~tper~qn.,:.·,_ , · .: · · ' . , .. ·-,... ·; .. >. · .. ,_• .. ~ - - - · § 1~73~2.. Moti9n requesting; testing· · .. i 1 i · , · ; A. Notw'ithstanding any.:other ·provision of ·law concerning . ·:postconviction. relief," a: person ·.convicted ·of a .. violent:.felony crime .or~who: has received"a isentence--of 25: years or more .and who a.ssei:ts that he ·or ~he did p~t. .conun.\t -~;u~h ~e ~~r .file a motion m the sentencm~ court requesting forensic DNA test- . ing;'of' an~ ... biologi;caf in~t~rl~l' secured\ 'in the' investigatfon or pros~c'uti9n a'ttendari~ tb .. tl;i~ C.h~ll.e~g~d corivi~tion~' l>ersqns eligible for '.testing' s.~all ... ip9hid~· ~ily ~nd all• pf the follQ~iiig:. . \.. '1 • _.. • I ' . • ' {) . j ,,, ~. " ,, ' ' •. ~ • ' • ' I I ,. • ' : ) ' . . . . ·. 1. Persons -currently incarcerated, civilly committed, .on par~~~ or J?'.:r:oba~io:r:i. ~r: ~ll~je,?t t?.. :~ 1E1X. of:fe,i:i~~~ regi~~~a~ion; ' 2. Per,aons convicted on .a plea of ,not gwlty, guilty or. nolo contend,· 0 r, e,· . ·. . "., . ' . ' . .. , ·- ' ' - ' . . ,...... I ' ' .~:· ! ; j~ • . 3. Persons de~m~d tq ;h.ave .P~ovide,d a confession or~. admis . :. &iqµ r~fated !to. tq~' crll;iyte, l.~~ther .before ~r ajt~~. convic~on of ~he. ~#~:e; ~nd :· · .. ; i J: ~. ~; . . :.; -/ , . : . : • · ·,, · 4. Persons who have discharged the sentence for• which ; J .th~ per~op..~~~.:co~vipted .. !··'. . 1 • : • . . , B. A convicted per~oq. .Jriay requ~st .forensic .DNA testjng of- . a.~Y. b~9lo~~a~: pia~tj~~- ~.~~~J.~ .in ~\}e cµiv~~ti~~tio~ ;~r prosecu- ".t1on a~t~nq~~ to !~he .::~o~vi~t~~n· t~at: _, ~ , . .. -:. . , • 1 . • 1. Wa~ )?.ot previ:o~sly S;Qbj~~ted to PNA testing; !or . · ·2.' Although .. previously subjected to DNA, testing, can be subjected.to testing with::newer. -testing techniques that prQvidE!., a .re~SOP.a\}le Jik~.liho9cJ ~pf results: ~hat are more ac . curate and. probatiye_.tn~_n· ~he results :9f the;previous.iPNA . : t~st, . ~ : .. . ·~ , .~ C. The motion requesting forensic .DNA tes~ing .. _shall be ac companied. by an affidavit swo~.to~by the convicted._person containing statements. of. fact .in support of the motion. · D.. Upon·receipt of the. motion.requesting forensic DNA: test ing, the sentencing. court shall provide .a copy of·the motion to .Ahe attorney ~epresenting: the: state: and requite ·the~ attorney ·'for.the state to file a response within .60' days. of receipt .of ser .vice or longer, upon good cause: shown~· The ·response ·shall · .include an 1inv.e~tory of all the ev:idence. related to the case, · including the cQ.s.to.~an :of such evidence. ,' : 527 § 39:48 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF E. A guardian of a convicted ·person· may submit motiol).s for the convicted person under the provisions of this act and.. shall , be en#tled to counsel as .otherwise provided to a convicted person pursuant to this act. .' .. ·. , • . § 1373.3~ ; Pro se referrals The ·sentencing court, in its ·discretion~ may refer pro se requests for DNA testing to qualified parties willing to accept the referrals for further review ·without appointing the parties as counsel for the convicted person at that time. Such qualified parties may include, .but .shall not be limited to, indigent defense organizations or clinical legal educ~tion programs. · ·§ 1373.4. Hearing-Testing · A. After the motion reque~ting fo~ensic DNA testlng and subsequent response have' b~en fileq, the· sentencing court· shall hold .a ll.earlng to deterinine'whether DNA forensic testi;ng will be ordered. A court shall 'order DNA testing only if th~ court fuids: · · · · 1. A reasonable probability that the petitioner would not have· been convicted if favorable results had been obtained through DNA testing at the time of the original prosecution; 2. The request for DNA testing is· made to demonstrate the innocence of the convicted person ·and ·is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of the sentence 'or the adminiistration of justice; . ' 3. One or more of the items of ·evidence the conVicted person seeks to have tested still exists; . . 4~ The evidelice.. to be tested was secured in relatiOn to the challenged conviction .and either was n:·ot preViously subject to DNA testing or, if·previously tested· for DNA, the evidence can be subjected to additional DNA test~ng that will :provide a reasonable likelihood of more probative results;. and' 5. The chain of custody of the evidence to be tested is suf- . ficient to establish that the evidence has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced or altered in any material respect or, if the chain of custody does :not- establish the integrity of the ·evidence, the testing·itself has the potential· to establish the integrity of the. evidence. For purposes of' this act, evi dence that has been in the custody of law enforceIDrent, other · government officials or a, public or priv.ate hospital shall be presumed to satisfy the chain:..of-custody Tequirement of this subsection abf:?ent ·Specific evidence of material tampering, · replacement or alteration. B. If at the ·close of the hearing the court orders DNA foren sic testing to be conducted, the court-by written order shall 528 OKLAHOMA § 39:48 ·require the attorney.representing the state to effect the transfer of the iteiµ or items of evidence to be tested along with any documents, logs or reports relating to the items of evidence col lected incoD;nection with the ~in~. ~ase t~ .th~ 4esignated -:.. . laboratory or laboratories. within 30 days of the order. Ip. addi- tion, the court shall require th~ atto111ey representing the state to assist th~ petitioner in loc,ating any eyidence the state contends was lost, destroyed or in the pos~ession of any other governmental entity, public or private hospit~l, laboratory or . 'i othef facility. • ' . : ' • ' I , .. C. If the attorney representing the· state· or the petitioner previously conducted any DNA analysis or other biological . · evidence testing .without. the knowledge· of the. other party, such testing shall be revealed in the motion requesting:forensic DNA . testing. qr :r;-esponse. . · . ·D. The .court may order DNA testing to be performed· by the , Oklahoma State ·Bureau, ofJnvestigation (OSBI); an accredited · .laboratory operating under contract. with the. OSBI or. another accredited laboratory, as defined in Section 150.37 of Title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes. If th~. OS~I or ~ accrecJi.ted .labora tory,. undez: contract wit~ the OSBI conducts the .testing, the st!lte shall bear. tq.e costS· ofthe testh;lg:. If another ]~boratory conducts the testing becaus.e .neither: the OSBI nor an accred ited labor~tory under contract with, the OSBI ~as the ability or the resources to ·conduct the type :of DNA testing to be performed, or if an accredited laboratocy that 'is neither the OSBI nor under contract with the OSBI ·is chosen for some other reason, then' the· court shall require the petitioner to pay for the testing. · · .· E. The results of any postconviction DNA testing conducted under.· the provisions · of this act, · induding any laboratory . reports prepared in connection with the. testing, the underlying data· or other laboratory documents, ·shall be disclosed to the ·petitioner, the attorney for the state and the court. F. If an accredited laboratory other than the OSBI or one under contract with :the OSBI performs the DNA testing, the court shall .impose reasonable conditio~s on the testing of the evidence to protect. the inte;r;ests _qf th~ -parties in the integrity of the .evidence ~nd testing. proc.ess and ·to preserve th~. ~yi d~nce to the greatest extent possible. . . ·§ ·1373.5. Result&-!-Relief .. · .. ': A. If the results-of the forensic DNA testing conducted under the provisions of this act are favorable· ~to the· petitioner; the ·court shall schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate relief to be granted. Based on:the·results ofthe testing and any 529 § 39:48 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF other evidence :presented at the hearing, .the· court shalL~here : after. enter.,any order that.serves the interests ·of justice .includ- i. ing; :but 'not limited to, any of the following: · , ·· .. ·· ~ ,:.\ · ~i:· An· order'·setting ~side br1 vacating the judgment: of ,·c~rivfotiori., :jud_gment: of not ··g:uilty by reason· of llle.iltal ·dis- 1 . eas~ o:P defect tir adjudication of" delinquency; . ·· · ! ) . .'. :: :~ i. ¥ .brd~r. gran: tirig .the p~ti ti~il~r a ne~ trial .9f .fact- , fi.ndin · heann ; · ·. · - · ~.. · . .. ; 'g .... g, ' ' . - ,.,, -. . 3. An orcier granting .the petitioner 8:··new.:co~t~~nt , . ~~iµing.o;r <µsposition~l h~ari,~g; ...... _. :"·, _· _·. ·4. _·An prde~1. dischargipg ~e; petjtioner &olll:.:custody; , , · :.;·~ .\'5.rAn-order·epecifyingthe disposition of~anyevidence that 7 • • ' remains· after the. completion of the testing; .. · 1 ·: . : . :'. , 6. An order granting the petitioner additional discovery·on :·:' matters· related to the :DNA test :vesults on the:convictfon or : · sentence wider scrutinyincluding, but;-not limited to, docu . ' : ments pertaining to the original criminaI investigation· or the 'identities of other· suspects; or.. :· .i. · ··; ·': ·.-· ·· 7:.· An ordt:\r ·directing· th~- state· to: place any'·unidentified : · ·. DNA- profile or' profiles- obtained' from postconvictio1t DNA '. ' ·testing into Oklahoma o~ federal databas.es ·as allowed-Within · applicaple. state .and-~ federallaws: ' :~" .. ·, · ' •· Ii: · lf''tlle -~esults of the t~st.s' are not'.ifavorable · tc» the ~petititiner, the' cpurt ~pall:_-. - •. ;. ! .. : ! - ' • • • ' : " ' .'.i~ Dis~s' ~h~ .WQ~i~n; and : ' J " -, I • . 2. Make such further ord~rs as.the court.deems appropri- ate, including an order that: .. · , a .. requires ·the DNA! test ,results: be provided to the Pa.rdon1and Parole Board or Department of Corrections, or . . ·: b. requests·the·DNAprofile ofthe petitioner be add~d to the convicted' offender. ·index database .of the OSBI Com bined 'DNA Index· Sy~tem-(CODIS) Database as proviqed -,.by.law. ·" : ,§ 1373-.6. Agreement· to·.conduct testing · A. The filing of a ~motion for p'ostconviction· DNA testing shall - t n·ot pe reqtiired· i(both the state and: the convicted person ·consent and agres to :conduct :postconviction DNAtesting/ · B. Notwithstanding any·othei··provision of law governing postconviction relief, if DNA test results-obtained under." testing , cond~cted,_upon: c.onsent· of...the parties_,ar.e .favorable to the . :coIJ.victed- person,. :·the: convicted· person m_ay fil~ and the cQurt shall .adJudiGate, an order pursuant to Section 6 of, this act. for postconviction relief based.. on .. the DNA test .res:ults. i . · 530 OKLAHOMA §.39:49 § 1873.7. Appeals .~ ~ •, . . . . .~"' · ·· · . ,;·.,· .... : An app,eat_ unde;__th~, pr~yis~ons. o~ t~e. Post~o~'}~~iop.! :fl~A Act may be taken .m the. sam~ m~nner as, any oth~r .~ppeal .. , '• •f -; \ " ':' l ' , ' 1.;, !• • ! ; ~ • ~ : * ;,_' ' . , .f ! ; 'I•; '. : > ,_' • ': ~ ' ' • j .. . •I I . ;J•. ·:· :. •.;·_,! § 39:•9 1 ·Postconvictioil DN:A·testing statut~Oklahoma · · · St41-tes ··Title: 2~ § '1S17a~Case .. law ; · · · ·1 • • ! ·,' , '. , " ' ! \ ' I :· ''. '.° ;"' ,' '>'. . ; ,; • '• •·" - . .. O . For.case la;w _on§ 13~3, s~, e~g.,. Wa.~son v.,,$ta_t~, 20~9 .9K CR .3? 3~:?.3d 1282 (Old~ ..c~~~~pp. 2Q15}:C~tliough.~Jle ~q~tcpp v:ic~~on. D~A (\ct (A,ct) .do~s .. ~o.t :e~;ressly mcll+d~ a .proceP,~8.) :bar like· that found 'in Section· i0~.6, the. A.ct: only prqvides ,that·-a person may file "a motion";· throughout .th~ A~t .that motfoii'is 'referred to 1n •the. singular ntiJllber,· .indfoatiri.g multiple inot:fons are not intended; Act ·does :stat'e that.the· person may file: the·:filo tion ~twithstanding any, ot~t;provision.,of·law concernjng, p9st- . conviction ·:t:eli~f; _hQwev~r, ·vre . .dp P.ot ::find that. provision is intended :tP. p:reclµde·· use of.the 'prqeecitµ"a)i..bar found in Act; pro vision in Section 1373.2(A) is,_iµtende$1,. .~~~~necessary, to de clare the Act retroactive and applicable to previously final crimi ~al cases; in other 'Y'Ords a pqst-.conviction motion requ~sting ·DNA' testing· ma:y· be' filed ~n.d·;heard regardless I of the ··person's previoti~. chal\eµges ti> .ltis :or ·~et; ~onv~c~ion. ,or senteri~e taken :prior_.to.'th:~~tr~ectiv~ d_.~¥·g.:f .. 4·c-t)__ ·;_.J.~~ate_.~~·re.. l· .. ·_8cr1ii·.·t!i v~-~~uioirth, 2014 .. OK C.tt 16, .~37: P.3d .. 7aa· (Q~a.-.Crn;i;t.•. App.. 2Ql4) ,(~bs~µt an ·~davit -~worn· ~.o. by.. post~c.oµVictjqµ petiµpp.e1 § 39:50 Erroneous Convictions Act . ·aklalidma. has an erroneo,i~. ~bnvi~tion~. act, enacted in. ~003 by the Act of May 28, 2003, ch. 304, § 2, 2003 Okla. Sess. Laws 1224, 1227 to 29, and codified in subsection B of§ 154 ("Extent of liability-Wrongful criminal felony convictions re$ulting in imprisonment-Punitive or exe~plai-y damages~oinder of par ti~s-Sev~ral liability"), and subsections. B and H of § 156 ("Pre sentatioil of claim~Limitation of·actio11s-Filing~NotiCe Wrorigful death"), ofChapter 5 ("Governmental Tort Claims· Act") bf Title 51 ("Officers") of the Oklahoma Statutes Annotated (Okla~ Stat: Ann. tit. 51,~ § 154(B), § 156(B), (H)). . ·. · '.: · . . AS. ~_odined, Qklahdma'~ ·e~~ne~ms. conyictio~s a~t prp°0des under Okla .. Stat.. Ann. tit. 51, § 154(B) and 156(B), (H): .. · · § 154.. ~Extent of liability--Wrongful criminal felony . ·· convictions resulting in imprisonment-:.:-Puni.J .. tive or exemplary damage~oinde.r of par· · ties-Several liab~lity 1 B. L ·B~gi~ning_on the effective·d~te pf this act, dEilins .shaU be allowed for· wrongful crimiual felony conviction· resµlting in imprisonment _if the clai.illant ,has received a full pardon . o;n t~e basis of a wtjtten {:inding by the· Governor of actual in nocence for· the crime for· which the claimant ·was s~ntenced .:or has· been granted judicial relief absolving the ·claimant of guilt. on the basfs of actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant -was sentenced.- The Governor or the court shall specifically :state, in the: pardon or· order, the evidence or ·basis on whichthe finding of actual innocence is based. 2. AB used in paragraph 1 of this subsection, for a claim- .· · · ant to recover based· on "actual innocence", the individual must meet the following criteria: . a.. the' indiVi~ual was charged, by indictment or inforina~ · · tion, with the·commi.ssion. of a public offense classified'as a felony, : · · · b. the individual <;lid not T pleap guilty to the offense charged,, or to ariy lesser· 'included offense, but was convicted of the offense, . . . . ' .· .. ·c. the .individual was senten~ed tp incarcer~ti~~ foi: .a tern;t qf impri~onment a~ .a result ~{th~ conviction, · d. the individual was imprisoned solely on. the basis of the conviction for the offense, and · , .; , . , . e. (1) .in the case of a pardon, a aetermination was m:ade by either the Pardon and ·Parole· Board or the Governor that the offense ·for which the' individual was convicted, '532 OKLAHOMA §,39:50 . ' sentenced and imprisoned, including any lesser· offenses, was not committed by the individual, or (2) in the case of judicial relief, a .court of competent jurisdiction found by clear and convincing evidence that the offense for which the individual was convicted, sentenced and imprisoned, including any· lesser included offenses, was. n~t committed by the -individual and issued an. order vacating~, dismissing. or reversing·, the conviction and sentence· and providing that no further ,proceeci4igs ·· can be or will be held against. the individual on any facts and circumstances alleged in .the proceedings which had . resulted in the ·conviction. · a.·. A clainiant;shall'not.be entitled to compensation for any ·part·~fa sentence in pnson.\d~g whi~h-,the clainlant was also serving a concurrent ·sentence for a criine not' covered by this sub~ection...... 4. 'rhe· total .ll~bilU~ o(t~~ st~te apd \ts political subdivi sio:r;is ,on any 'cla.irii wit:tiin ~P.e. scope of 'The Governmental Tort Qlaims Act arising out of W,ro:µgf~l crimi.nal felQny -conviction resulting in impriaonme:rit shall. not exceed One . Jlµridred SeventY-five· Tliou8and Dollars <$17(5,00Q.OO). · , J . , , t • . , • I , ~ i - , I ' • . . 5. The provisions of this subsection shall :apply to convic tions occurring .on or before ·the effective date! of this. act as well· as,; ·convictions occurring after the effective date of this . act.. If a .court of competent. jurisdictidn finds that retroactive application· of :this subsection is •uncons.titutional, · the pro ' ' spe~tive application of this' subsection shall: remain valid. .... '' § 156. Presentation of claim~Limitation of ·actions ;'~. · Filing-Noti~~Wrongful,'death L '_,, ·, 'I ,· • ,' ·;- ' ' ! • • • I • ~ ' J J . ~ ·, • • ' • • : • Ja ; ~ • I I • I B. Exc;~pt· as prov~ded ,in subsection H of. tµis, s:ection, and not .withstanding. any o~~er prq'1s~on of law, c~~l;lims. aga4ist ~he state or ,a .politics.}.. subdivisioJJ.: a.re tq. be pre~eD:~d within one (1) year of the date the los~; 09,curs,.)A.~aim ag~t the~state or a. political sub~vision shall be .foreve.r barred_ .unless. notice thereof i~ presented within on~ (1) year a~er:the 10s~ occurs .. . . . ..__ r• ~, ' 1 0 ' , I H. For piirposes of claims based on wrongful felony convic tion resulting in' imprisonment, provided for in· Section 154. of this title, loss occurs on- the date that :.the. claimant receives a pardon based on actual innocence .from the Governor or the date tqat the claimant receives' judicial ··relief absolving the · claimant of guilt based on· actual innobence;! ·provided, for 583 §:39:50 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND. RELIEF persons .. whose·basis· for.ar daim OCCl;JlTed. prior·to: the, effective date of this act, the 'claim must (be submitted .. within one (1) yearJ~·~er. the effective d:~te c:>fi t~s ~ct .. '.. ··: I •'.' • i I ' i . ·, .~I:.;: ' ~ f ' :. ' . , • · . ' ='·. ·- 1 ··,; • ; '; •• • • :-·; a· § 39:51. ~~()neous Conv,ictions.Ac~ase law. .,. · .# • • ' • : • ~ ... j • • _. ' • ; • . · For case law on· Oklahoma's erroneous ~convictions. act,. see, e.g., Courtney v. State·~ 2013: OK .64, .a07-P.3d 3S7:{0kla; 2013) (statu tory law and· precedent &dm; this Court· state. that.jurisdiction to make the 'thresliold. determination of actual ·innocence lies in the court that vacates, dismisses: or.·reverses the.cori.vfotion of the person seeking to pursue a wrongful.conviction claim;:jurisdiction to. re~ew an order deqi~ng a .re.q~est ~Q· d~~~~p)ip.~ ,actual .in- ~ nocenpe. lies in tJ;ris .Cow;t;: ~e c9~c~pt of ,act~aI ..in~ov~:Q~e i~ :~ot a common .law legal ~tandard .in .the same seJ;l:~e as ;guilt. beyond a reasonable 'doubt; the' term actual innocence' is~~. ge~~~al e~pres- sio~. of ~egislative: in~(~;n~. ~o limit .. tort C?lah:µ~ relie.£. FO ~a·ses. in w;t11ch ~h~· de~en~~t. '!'as ex~ne!7~tec;l, as op~~~ed ~o__c~ses i~ ~hich a conVIction ls set aside from tlie' suppress1on· of a confession or the'.ei:clusion of other eVidence; even tlio-µgh~ the 'determination of actual ''Innocence is ·to be' -·~ade tifi c'OnJUllcti&n With' ·a: postconvic tion relief'ptoceedirig, "actu'.al iiillocertce tis not. an rissue .that' must be determined for the court to· grant· postconviction relief; actual innocence js an aricillaty issue to be ·determined in: a supplemental proceeding; in the supplementaLproceeding,•the cour.t·.makes use of the evidence adduced; a:t :the· postconviction1 relief proceeding as well as: other eVidence;, by directillg the' postconViction relief court to nrake the. additional rdetenhinatiori of actual -innocence, the Legislature was not making actual innocence a matter of crimi nal jutjspru.dei;i,c~; th~ .L.egis~ature ~wa~ simijl,Y ~e~g to a~hieve judicial economy; i~ tlie~fiPBl .. anii!ysi~;.~.d~~~nation of actual innocence does not entitle .. the''successful petitfoner to further relief under the crimjnal law,· it simply. paves the way for the pe.titioner· to. pursue ciVil liability ·on 'the'1part·cof :the~ State; in dexi.jing: the request to determine actual innocence -in the case at hand, the :triarcourt e~presiiJed··concer~ 1 that petitioner did :.not meet his? "burqeri: of· prd0f'9 Qll' ti:te·' is~tie of liis. a~tual innocence; we find the:triaJ. 'co~ hlso"err~Cl as::a·.matter onaw ih construing the showing reqtµred 'by·:the petitioner to' be ·a "burden of 'proof'; statutory construction presents a question of law that is review ablei. de?_noV.b;; !while ·the· Legislatur..e .. does::.requir.e·· clear· and ·convincing. evidence.' of: actual· j.nno. 534 I OKLAHOMA §·39:51 keeper role of the court is to determine whether the petitioner had made a prima facie case of innocence; the requirement of "clear and convincing evidence" at this stage is not a burden of proof, but is the measure of the prima facie case; in assessing the prima facie case at this stage, the postconviction relief court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the petitioner, particularly any exonerating evidence; an appellate court must likewise view the evidence in a light most favorable to the petitioner when conducting de novo review of the actual innocence finding by the postconviction relief court; the determination of actual innocence is ancillary to a proceeding seeking judicial relief from a conviction and is to be made utilizing the evidence offered in support of such relief and other evidence; a court should view the evidence in a light most favorable to the petitioner, bearing in mind that actual innocence will be again examined in the claims process and may ultimately be determined by a jury). 535