458 P.3d 620
Okla. Crim. App.2019Background
- Petitioner Joseph Truskolaski was convicted of one count of manslaughter (Tulsa County Case No. CF-2009-3155) and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Truskolaski filed federal habeas corpus petitions in the Northern District of Oklahoma before seeking relief under Oklahoma’s Post-Conviction Procedure Act; those federal attempts were unsuccessful.
- On May 17, 2018, Truskolaski filed his first state post-conviction application alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- The Tulsa County District Court (Judge Kelly Greenough) denied the state post-conviction petition, reasoning Truskolaski’s prior federal habeas petitions constituted “any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief” under 22 O.S. § 1086 and thus procedurally barred his state claims.
- Truskolaski appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing the district court erred by treating federal habeas proceedings as a bar to a state post-conviction application and by failing to rule on his claims.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals granted post-conviction relief, held federal habeas proceedings do not qualify as “any other proceeding” under the state statute, and remanded for the district court to make findings and rule on the application within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior federal habeas proceedings constitute "any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief" under 22 O.S. § 1086, thereby barring a later state post-conviction application | Truskolaski: federal habeas does not trigger the statutory bar; he first sought federal relief because state remedies were not previously pursued and federal courts would have required exhaustion | State: petitioning for federal habeas counts as "any other proceeding" to secure relief and thus bars subsequent state post-convictions under § 1086 | Court held federal habeas proceedings are not the "any other proceeding" contemplated by the Post-Conviction Procedure Act; remanded for district court to address the merits and enter required findings within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Newlun v. State, 348 P.3d 209 (Okla. Crim. App. 2015) (standard of review for statutory interpretation and post-conviction issues)
- Bryan v. State, 948 P.2d 1230 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997) (scope of issues properly raised in Oklahoma post-conviction proceedings)