WATSON v. STATE
2015 OK CR 3
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Watson was convicted by jury of First Degree Murder in CF-2000-428 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Direct appeal resulted in affirmance of Judgment and Sentence (Watson v. State, No. F-2001-1356, 2002).
- Petitioner filed a first post-conviction motion on January 6, 2014 seeking DNA testing under 22 O.S.Supp.2013, §§ 1373–1373.7.
- District Court denied the first motion on March 4, 2014 for lack of a necessary affidavit, rendering him ineligible for testing under § 1373.2(C).
- Petitioner appealed the denial of the first motion but the appeal was dismissed as untimely (No. PC-2014-302, 2014).
- Petitioner filed a second post-conviction motion on April 7, 2014 seeking DNA testing; the District Court denied on June 17, 2014, holding the grounds could have been raised in the first motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second post-conviction motion is barred by 1086 (Uniform Post-Conviction Act). | Watson alleges grounds were not properly raised earlier. | Court should apply the 1086 procedural bar to second motions. | Yes; second motion barred by 1086. |
| Whether the grounds for relief in the second motion could have been raised in the first motion. | Grounds could have been raised in the first motion. | Grounds were not adequately raised in the first motion. | Grounds could have been raised in the first motion; barred for second motion. |
| Whether Watson was denied any appeal in the first post-conviction proceeding through no fault of his own. | Argues insufficient basis to claim denial of appeal in first motion. | No fault shown for not timely appealing. | Watson failed to show denial of appeal through no fault of his own. |
| Whether DNA testing can be ordered if both State and petitioner agree, outside the motion process. | Potentially available via agreement under § 1373.6. | Not applicable here; no agreement existed. | DNA testing may be ordered outside the motion process if there is State-petitioner agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. State, 2015 OK CR 3 (OK Crim. App. 2015) (this opinion)
- Blades v. State, 107 P.3d 607 (2005 OK CR 1) (procedural bars under post-conviction context)
- Smith v. State, 611 P.2d 276 (1980 OK CR 43) (state post-conviction procedures; timely appeal)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Neuwirth, 337 P.3d 763 (2014 OK CR 16) (post-conviction DNA Act appeals; procedural framework)