*1 suspended said /s/Ed Parks sen- fying the revocation Judge ED presented the court at tence is twenty purpose held for that within be A. /s/Charles Johnson (20) Be- days the date arrest.” after JOHNSON, Judge CHARLES A. statutory language, absent cause of this defendant, find the valid waiver applies (20) from the time
twenty day rule and detained on person is arrested suspended revoke a
State’s person
sentence, regardless of fact the other already custody on
charges. CASTRO, Sr., Petitioner, appear from the record
It does John Walter arrest Court that warrant of before this application to revoke upon the was issued Oklahoma, Respondent. The STATE of suspended This is Appellant’s sentence. already in Appellant probably because was No. PC-89-571. charges. an custody other Oklahoma. by Appellant in the appearance was made 9,1990, January pursuant Court on District July application at revocation the State’s Appellant. set which time bond 9, 1990,
Therefore, con January would be Appellant restrained the date
sidered and, application; revocation
on the State’s would retain
the District Court (20) twenty days from matter for hearing on As the the revocation
this date. suspended was not Appellant’s sentence 3, 1990, July the record
held until and
before this Court does reflect waiver (20) day Appel rule twenty
lant, longer no retained the District Court
jurisdiction Appellant this matter. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF
IT IS vote, COURT, by a five to zero
THIS be, should judgement is, hereby and REMAND- REVERSED appli-
ED instructions to DISMISS suspended sen- Appellant’s
cation to revoke lack of No. CRF-80-116 for
tence Case
jurisdiction.
IT ORDERED. IS SO THE AND OUR HANDS
WITNESS
SEAL THIS COURT. OF F. Lane
/s/James LANE, Presiding Judge F.
JAMES Lumpkin
/s/Gary L. Presiding L.
GARY
Judge
/s/Tom Brett BRETT, Judge
TOM
159 Gen., B. Henry, Atty. Wellon Robert H. Gen., Poe, Atty. City, for Asst. Oklahoma respondent.
OPINION LANE, Presiding Judge: Sr., Petitioner, Castro, John Walter post- on an for before the Court for conviction relief. Petitioner was tried Pappan, of felony-murder Rhonda manager a restaurant in Ponca of fast-food Hobo-T’s, City called stabbed whom robbing death the course of restau rant. Petitioner sentenced death Court, Kay Case No. County District CRF- This Court affirmed the death sen 83-130. (Okl. State, P.2d tence v. 745 394 Castro Cr.1987), for petition and denied the rehear State, 749 1146 Castro U.S. t. denied 485 cer Petition S.Ct. asking er is review now validity sentence for of his conviction and the third time. proposi nine petitioner raises Four of these were
tions of error. appeal petition for re raised on direct or hearing by res and are therefore barred 693 P.2d judicata. Coleman 1981, 1086; (Okl.Cr.1984),22 O.S. could propositions four have been of appeal2, are therefore raised on direct waived. See Smith Al (Okl.Cr.1976), 1086. petitioner’s though find that two we arguments regarding the waived, will them, explain why they Braden, do not Appellate Asst. Public address Scott W. Defender, jurisdictional Norman, petitioner. raise issues as for (district (unconstitutional Propositions Propositions 2. III denial of competent psy- expert by failing post-examination compe- funds for assistance and a to conduct (death expert), must IV tency (petitioner deprived chiatric hearing), II unsup- jury improperly for included vacated ported being by fair trial tried without "heinous, aggravating factor atrocious competency), (prosecutor VIII violated sentence), (re- determining VI and cruel” in weighing Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of federal aggravating Court of factors telling they jury were constitution (trial unconstitutional), VII (district petitioner), IX court sentencers of federal and state constitutions court violated Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated ruling report prepared peti- pre-sentence by failing to instruct federal constitution plea guilty, had which was tioner entered capital presumption life in there exists withdrawn, in the was inadmissible second later case). sought stage to introduce trial and evidence) mitigating appeal were raised on it as petition rehearing. or on the fact that the based his petition address the
argues. will also argues at the time he filed his in which he Court had proposition er’s fifth Clemons; granted certiorari this Court brief *3 (12) days to affirm a death in order was handed down twelve circumstances decision aggravat Following more of the penalty after one or was filed. Clem- after his brief weighed by the argument. circumstances reject ons Although the invalid. determined court denial of the We affirm the district previously, this issue petitioner has raised post-conviction petitioner’s application for the law this area development relief. Supreme Court Clem the United States 738, 110 S.Ct. Mississippi, 494 U.S. ons v.
1441,
our
LUMPKIN, Y.P.J.,
warrants
in result.
concurs
reconsideration.
JJ.,
BRETT and
concur.
any
petitioner does not cite
The
support
argument
his
authority to
JOHNSON, J., recuses.
jurisdiction of a criminal
court loses
district
to a defendant’s
question
as
matter when
Presiding Judge,
The
trial is raised.
to stand
concurring in results.
ques
provided that
legislature has
when
results reached
I concur
present competen
tion as to a defendant’s
However,
disagree
in this case.
Court
raised,
the criminal
cy to stand trial
analysis of the issue of
the Court’s
suspended pending
proceedings shall be
present competency pur-
competency of the
of the
the determination
O.S.1981,
seq.
1175.1 et
as
suant to
§
1175.2(C) (em
defendant.
present sanity”.
juris-
Our
the “defense
added).
recently ex
phasis
As this Court
insanity
prudence recognizes a defense of
plained
Kiser v.
committed, but
at the time the offense was
compe
post-examination
“present insanity”.
not a defense of
See
the defendant with
tency hearing provides
(Okl.Cr.1988).
State,
The argument of Crimi
time the that Appeals may
nal invalidating one of the
circumstances after
aggravating circumstances found rejected has
jury. This been
squarely by Court Clemons Mississippi, 494 U.S. 110 S.Ct.