Malone v. State
2013 OK CR 1
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Malone was convicted of First Degree Murder in Comanche County (case CF-2005-147) and sentenced to death after a jury trial and sentencing in 2001.
- This Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing (Malone v. State, 2007 OK CR 34).
- Appellant waived his right to jury trial for resentencing; a bench resentencing occurred in Oct. 2010 before Judge Mark R. Smith.
- The resentencing court found two aggravating circumstances: (a) murder to avoid or prevent lawful arrest or prosecution; (b) victim was a peace officer killed in official duty.
- The trial court weighed the aggravators against mitigators and imposed death; Malone appeals the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of jury trial for resentencing strategic validity | Defendant argues waiver was strategically ill-advised | State argues waiver was a thoroughly investigated strategic decision | Waiver was strategic and reasonably chosen |
| Effectiveness of counsel—closing argument strategy | Defense allegedly failed to argue mitigating weight or to spare life | Counsel chose to emphasize mercy and life without parole as the strategy | Counsel's closing strategy within wide professional discretion |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during sentencing | Prosecutor improperly impeached mitigation witnesses | Cross-examination within proper scope and not improper under law | No reversible plain error; no cumulative prejudice established |
| Double count/duplication of aggravators | Two aggravating factors were duplicative | Factors focus on different aspects; not duplicative | Issue barred by res judicata; not reversible on this record |
| Mandatory sentencing review standard and deference to factfinder | Court should independently weigh aggravators versus mitigators | Court applies Fisher deferential standard and does not substitute its weighing for the trier of fact | Court applied Fisher deferential review; valid weighing and substantial evidence supported death sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (demands highly deferential review for Strickland claims)
- Dodd v. State, 100 P.3d 1017 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (permits cross-examination of character witnesses for specific instances)
- Dawkins v. State, 252 P.3d 214 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (strategic decisions reviewed deferentially under Strickland)
- Fisher v. State, 736 P.2d 1003 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (establishes deferential Fisher standard for assessing substantiation of verdicts and sentences)
- Rojem v. State, 207 P.3d 385 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (mandates deferential mandatory sentence review; does not reweigh anew)
- Coddington v. State, 254 P.3d 684 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (confirms deferential role in mandatory review and no independent fact-finding)
- Underwood v. State, 252 P.3d 221 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (discusses balancing aggravators vs. mitigators as non-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt weighing)