Coddington v. State
2011 OK CR 21
Okla. Crim. App.2011Background
- Coddington was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to death; prior appellate history affirmed conviction, reversed sentence, and remanded for resentencing, then resentenced to death.
- On March 21, 2011, Coddington filed a capital post-conviction relief application under 22 O.S.Supp.2006, §§ 1089(C)-(D).
- The post-conviction review limits relief to issues not raisable on direct appeal or that could show prejudice; res judicata and waiver apply to claims that could have been raised on direct appeal.
- Two propositions of error are raised: ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error; other issues are treated as waived or not preserved for post-conviction review.
- The Court denied the application, denied evidentiary hearing and discovery, and granted a motion to file an over‑sized application; mandate to issue upon filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on juror issues | Appellate counsel failed to investigate jurors and raise issues about juror bias. | Failure prejudiced the outcome; juror misrepresentation could have affected impartiality. | No prejudicial effect; appellate counsel not required to investigate jurors; no ineffective assistance. |
| Ineffective assistance regarding Juror M.'s health inquiry | Appellate counsel should have argued trial counsel failed to question Juror M. about health and alertness. | No prejudice; trial strategy not shown; direct appeal already addressed the issue. | No prejudice; appellate counsel not ineffective for not pursuing this in post-conviction. |
| Waiver/waived claims of prosecutorial misconduct at resentencing | Resentencing counsel should have raised prosecutorial misconduct claims not previously ruled on. | Claims were raised on direct appeal or are waived; post-conviction not a second appeal. | Waived/precluded; not considered on post-conviction. |
| Ineffectiveness of resentencing trial/appellate counsel re mitigation | Counsel should have presented neuropharmacologist testimony and other mitigation. | Strategic choices; evidence differed from first trial; not ineffective for lack of specific testimony. | Not prejudicial; no ineffective assistance shown for failure to present additional mitigation evidence. |
| State-induced deficiencies and ABA guidelines | State resources and attorney turnover violated ABA guidelines, rendering representation ineffective. | ABA standards not dispositive; must show prejudice, which was not shown. | Not ineffective; no prejudice demonstrated; ABA standards not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance requires prejudice; strong presumption of reasonable performance)
- Harris v. State, 167 P.3d 438 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (prejudice required for ineffective assistance; appellate focus on strategic decisions)
- Robinson v. State, 255 P.3d 425 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (voir dire error reviewed for harmless error when not structural)
- Underwood v. State, 252 P.3d 221 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (juror bias requires material impact on outcome)
- Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 241 P.3d 214 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (discussion of confrontation and admission of expert opinion; harmless error analysis)
- Torres v. State, 120 P.3d 1184 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (capital defense standards not controlling; must show prejudice)
- Murphy v. State, 124 P.3d 1198 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (claims not raised on direct appeal generally waived)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (distinction on expert testimony relying on underlying reports)