Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 7

Davis filed a pro se post-conviction relief petition in Oct 2010 seeking an out-of-time certiorari appeal based on alleged lack of advisement and ineffective assistance for not appealing.
Davis had Alford pleas on Oct 6, 2009 in CF-2008-6216, CF-2009-1733, and CF-2009-3897, with the information alleging prior felony convictions.
Judge Kenneth Watson sentenced Davis to 35 years on each count, to run concurrently; he later granted a withdrawal of the pleas and, on Nov 3, 2009, accepted new Alford pleas to the same offenses except CF-2008-6216, where the allegation was amended to Possession with Intent to Distribute.
Davis did not appeal the convictions after the 2009 pleas.
The District Court denied post-conviction relief, finding Davis had been advised of appellate rights and chose not to appeal, and that there was no shown prejudice from any alleged counsel deficiency.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, recognizing that there is no automatic duty for counsel to consult about an appeal, applying Flores-Ortega.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to consult about appeal under Flores-Ortega	Davis argues counsel failed to consult on appeal.	No automatic duty; must show rational desire to appeal or demonstrated interest.	No duty established; no error in denial of relief.
Entitlement to post-conviction relief for advisement/ineffective assistance	Claims lack of advisement and ineffective assistance warrant relief.	Record shows advisement and no prejudice from lack of consultation.	Affirmed district court; no post-conviction relief warranted.

Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (no automatic duty to consult about appeal; duty exists only if rational defendant would want to appeal or showed interest)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (guilty plea can be given without admitting participation; informs appellate rights considerations)