Thacker v. Workman, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8165

Thacker pled guilty in Oklahoma to first-degree malice murder, kidnapping, and first-degree rape; the state sentenced him to death for the murder.
Direct appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence; state post-conviction relief petitions were denied.
Thacker pursued federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; district court denied relief.
A COA was granted on four issues, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief.
Factual background includes a December 1999 home invasion, rape, multiple killings, theft, and a crime spree culminating in more murders.
Thacker challenged the OCCA’s handling of sentencing evidence and his counsel’s ineffective assistance at various procedural stages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge impermissibly considered extraneous information	Thacker argues Judge Goodpaster used unallowable information and discounted bipolar evidence.	OCCA found waiver and proper weighing of mitigating evidence; no due process violation.	Waiver procedural bar applies; no reversible error found.
Whether bipolar disorder evidence was meaningfully considered	Thacker contends the judge discounted bipolar evidence as an aggravator and failed to consider it mitigatively.	Judge Goodpaster did weigh the bipolar evidence; it was not sufficient to avoid death.	OCCA reasonable; not contrary to Eddings.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for guilty-plea	Counsel misled Thacker to plead blind and failed to secure proper appellate paperwork.	No deficient performance; plea strategy was informed and reasonable under Strickland.	Procedurally barred; merits fail.
Equal protection/due process regarding waiver of appeal	Procedural steps to waive an appeal were not properly followed.	Thacker could not show state procedure denial; waiver decisions were proper.	Procedural bar applies; no due process violation.
Cumulative error	Multiple errors collectively warrant relief.	No individual errors established; no cumulative error.	No reversible cumulative error.

Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977) (death sentence based on undisclosed confidential material violates due process)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (mitigating evidence must be considered; cannot be precluded as a matter of law)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; deficient performance and prejudice required)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (plea-related prejudice standard; reasonable probability of different outcome)
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (S. Ct. 2012) (new rule on ineffective-assistance claims in initial-review collateral proceedings)