682 F.3d 880
10th Cir.2012Background
- Black was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; direct and postconviction appeals in state court were unsuccessful.
- This court affirmed the district court on the merits for most claims but did not resolve the remaining claims due to a question of Oklahoma law.
- Those procedurally barred claims were not presented to the OCCA on direct appeal or first postconviction; the second postconviction denial cited 22 O.S. § 1089(D)(8).
- The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma had dismissed most claims on the merits and others as procedurally barred; the court denied relief on remaining claims on procedural grounds.
- The issue presented asks whether, at the time of the 2008 second postconviction application, the OCCA’s procedural-bar determination under § 1089(D)(8) depended on merits of the federal constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1089(D)(8) independence depend on merits? | Black argues independence is undermined because OCCA reviewed merits. | State contends independence remains if the ruling rests on state law. | |
| Certified question; no resolution on independence in this order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (state-law prong not independent when federal ruling affects outcome)
- Brecheen v. Reynolds, 41 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1994) (state procedural ruling not independent when federal ruling dictates)
- Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 1998) (independence requirement for procedural grounds analysis)
- Valdez v. State, 46 P.3d 703 (Okla.Crim.App. 2002) (OCCA can review if miscarriage of justice or substantial rights violation occurs)
- Malicoat v. State, 137 P.3d 1234 (Okla.Crim.App. 2006) (same principle regarding review of otherwise procedurally barred claims)
- Stewart v. Smith, 534 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2001) (certification of state-law questions relevant to federal independence)