531 P.3d 649
Okla. Crim. App.2023Background
- Davison was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; direct appeal affirmed (Davison I) and initial post-conviction relief denied.
- He filed a second/successive capital post-conviction application (Nov 28, 2022) asserting omnibus ineffective-assistance claims against trial, appellate, and post-conviction counsel and submitting new affidavits and two psychological reports dated Sept. 6 & 9, 2022.
- Oklahoma law and Court rules tightly limit second/successive capital post-conviction claims: the legal or factual basis must have been previously unavailable, and claims based on newly discovered facts must be filed within 60 days of discovery.
- The OCCA reviewed multiple subclaims (mid-trial competency, penalty-phase mitigation investigation, trial-court bias/recusal and breakdown of the attorney-client relationship, omissions by appellate/post-conviction counsel, and ineffectiveness of initial post-conviction counsel).
- Court ruled most subclaims procedurally barred because their factual bases were ascertainable earlier (or previously litigated), denied motions for discovery and an evidentiary hearing, and rejected the claim that initial post-conviction counsel was ineffective on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-trial competency/competency evaluation timing | Davison: trial counsel delayed raising competency, gave improper notice, offered only lay observations and no expert opinion | State: facts showing competency concerns were available at trial/direct appeal; claim could have been raised earlier and is barred | Procedurally barred; competency already reviewed on direct appeal and no bona fide doubt found |
| Penalty-phase mitigation investigation and presentation | Davison: counsel failed to develop mitigation (brain damage, fetal alcohol exposure, childhood abuse, trans‑generational abuse, mental illness); new expert reports and affidavits bolster claim | State: underlying facts were or could have been discovered earlier; expert reports dated Sept. 2022 not timely presented in a second petition | Procedurally barred for untimeliness/ascertainability; insufficient to overcome prior record |
| Trial-court bias / counsel-withdrawal / breakdown of attorney-client relationship | Davison: refusal to recuse and court rulings caused breakdown and deprived him of effective assistance | State: these matters were known/litigated earlier; prior counsel challenged bias and were not unreasonable | Procedurally barred; prior proceedings addressed bias and no prejudice shown |
| Ineffectiveness of initial post-conviction counsel | Davison: initial post-conviction counsel omitted or ineffectively presented IAC claims; new affidavits and reports discovered late Sept. 2022 | State: this portion was timely filed within 60 days of discovery but record shows prior post-conviction counsel acted reasonably and omissions do not meet Strickland prejudice standard | Reviewed on merits and denied: no showing of objectively unreasonable performance or that outcome would have differed |
| Discovery and evidentiary hearing requests | Davison: seeks broad production of trial/prosecution files and an evidentiary hearing to support claims | State: requests are overbroad and do not show material would change outcome as required | Denied: scope and nexus to claimed relief not shown; no clear‑and‑convincing basis for hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Davison v. State, 478 P.3d 462 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020) (direct appeal decision affirming conviction and reviewing competency and mitigation issues)
- Bosse v. State, 499 P.3d 771 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (discussing standards for successive post‑conviction review and miscarriage‑of‑justice gateway)
- Bench v. State, 504 P.3d 592 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (res judicata and limits on relitigation of claims in post‑conviction proceedings)
- Harmon v. Sharp, 936 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2019) (counselial errors must be "completely unreasonable" to prevail under Strickland)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1992) (standard for reviewing successive habeas claims in death‑penalty context requiring gateway showing)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence gateway standard for otherwise procedurally barred claims)