WATSON v. STATE
343 P.3d 1282
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Watson convicted of First Degree Murder in CF-2000-428; life sentence; direct appeal affirmed.
- Watson filed a first post-conviction DNA motion on Jan 6, 2014 under 22 O.S.Supp.2013, §§ 1373-1373.7.
- District Court denied the first motion Mar 4, 2014 for lack of the required affidavit; an appeal was dismissed as not timely.
- Watson filed a second post-conviction DNA motion on Apr 7, 2014; District Court denied Jun 17, 2014, holding grounds could not have been raised in the first motion.
- This Court holds the Postconviction DNA Act appeal procedure is the same as the Uniform Post-Conviction Act appeal procedure, and that §1086 of the Uniform Act applies to second/subsequent DNA motions.
- The Court affirms the District Court’s denial, noting Watson failed to show why the DNA request could not have been raised in the first motion and that Watson did not demonstrate denial of his appeal in the first motion through no fault of his own.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1086 bars the second DNA motion | Watson argues grounds could be raised in second motion | State argues procedural bar applies | Yes, barred by §1086 |
| Whether error persists given retroactive DNA Act provisions | Watson relies on §1373.2(A) to allow new motion | Act does not override §1086 bar for second motions | Procedural bar applies; testing availability possible only with agreement per §1373.6(A) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blades v. State, 2005 OK CR 1, 107 P.3d 607 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (procedural bars under post-conviction relief)
- Smith v. State, 1980 OK CR 43, 611 P.2d 276 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) (appeal timing and post-conviction relief rules)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Neuwirth, 2014 OK CR 16, 337 P.3d 763 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014) (uniform post-conviction act procedures)