COLE v. TRAMMELL, 2015 OK CR 13

Background

Benjamin Cole was convicted of first-degree child abuse murder for the 2002 killing of his nine‑month‑old daughter and sentenced to death; state and federal appeals and habeas petitions were denied.
After the U.S. Supreme Court decisions resolving challenges to Oklahoma’s lethal‑injection protocol, the Oklahoma court set an execution date of October 7, 2015.
Cole sought mandamus in Pittsburg County to require the warden to initiate statutory sanity‑to‑be‑executed proceedings (22 O.S. §1005), alleging he was incompetent and had become insane; he also sought prohibition to restrict the method/drugs Oklahoma could use.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing, received mental‑health records and witness testimony (including a retained psychiatrist), and found Cole had not made the “substantial threshold showing” of insanity required to trigger a competency jury trial.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the denial of extraordinary relief (mandamus/prohibition), examined competency standards and the record, and denied both writs and a stay of execution.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Oklahoma’s procedure (warden initiates §1005) violates due process by vesting initiation in executive official	Cole: Vesting initiation in warden is unconstitutional; process inadequate.	State: §1005 plus mandamus review provides adequate procedures and judicial oversight.	Denied — Court follows Allen: Oklahoma procedure complies with constitutional requirements; mandamus review suffices.
Whether Cole made the "substantial threshold showing" of insanity to trigger a sanity jury under Ford/Panetti	Cole: Exhibits and expert testimony show delusions/mental illness sufficient to create reasonable probability of incompetence.	State: Record shows Cole understands the crime, punishment, and reasons for execution; religious beliefs do not equal delusions about execution rationale.	Denied — trial court not clearly erroneous; Cole failed to overcome presumption of competency.
Whether Cole’s religious statements and writings demonstrate irrational delusions like Panetti	Cole: Religious assertions (e.g., prophecy, God made him kill) show delusional framework that undermines rational understanding of state’s rationale.	State: Religious expressions were fervent but not detached from reality; prison staff observed coherent, informed conversations about crime and punishment.	Denied — statements distinguishable from Panetti; no credible evidence that beliefs distorted understanding of why he would be executed.
Whether the court should prohibit use of benzodiazepine (or otherwise alter method) as inconsistent with death warrant and §1014	Cole: Protocol intends to use benzodiazepine rather than an ultrashort‑acting barbiturate, violating statutory/ordered method.	State: Warrant and statute permit the method; challenges to protocol belong in post‑conviction process; changes in permitted drugs are procedural.	Denied — method challenge improperly presented via mandamus/prohibition; not entitled to relief here; claim belongs in post‑conviction proceedings.

Key Cases Cited

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (Eighth Amendment bars execution of the insane; triggers due‑process hearing requirement)
Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (prisoner must have a rational understanding of the State’s rationale for execution; delusions can vitiate rational understanding)
Allen v. State, 265 P.3d 754 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (Oklahoma’s §1005 procedure and mandamus review comply with federal constitutional requirements)
Cole v. State, 164 P.3d 1089 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (prior direct appeal regarding conviction and competency issues)
Bingham v. State, 169 P.2d 311 (Okla. Crim. App. 1946) (state test for sanity to be executed: understanding of proceedings, crime, punishment, impending fate, and ability to communicate relevant facts)
Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (presumption of sanity; burden on prisoner to overcome it)