GLOSSIP v. STATE
PCD-2023-267; D-2005-310
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
April 20, 2023
2023 OK CR 5 | 529 P.3d 218
LEWIS,
OPINION DENYING SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, MOTION FOR DISCOVERY, AND JOINT MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION
LEWIS, JUDGE:
¶1 Petitioner, Richard Eugene Glossip, was convicted of First-Degree (malice) Murder in violation of
¶2 This Court, on direct appeal, affirmed Glossip‘s murder conviction and sentence of death in Glossip v. State, 2007 OK CR 12, 157 P.3d 143. Glossip, thereafter, filed an initial application for post-conviction relief, which was denied in an unpublished opinion. Glossip v. State, No. PCD-2004-978, slip op. (Okl.Cr., Dec. 6, 2007). Glossip has filed other subsequent applications for post-conviction relief, which this Court has denied.3 Glossip‘s execution is currently scheduled for May 18, 2023. He is now before this Court with his fifth application for post-conviction relief, a motion for evidentiary hearing, and a motion
¶3 The Attorney General of Oklahoma has filed a response requesting that this Court vacate Glossip‘s twenty-five-year-old murder conviction and sentence of death and send the case back to the district court for a new trial. Despite the request, Attorney General Gentner F. Drummond is “not suggesting that Glossip is innocent of any charge made against him” and “continues to believe that Glossip has culpability in the murder of Barry Van Treese.” The Attorney General‘s “concession” does not directly provide statutory or legal grounds for relief in this case. This Court‘s review, moreover, is limited by the legislatively enacted Post-Conviction Procedure Act found at
¶4 The Attorney General has also joined Glossip in a joint motion for stay of execution asking that Glossip‘s execution be stayed until August 2024, because he believes Glossip‘s application satisfies the requirements of
I.
¶5 The facts of Glossip‘s crime presented at trial were detailed in the 2007 direct appeal opinion. We reiterate a few of the facts here. Justin Sneed, the co-defendant, pled guilty, received a sentence of life without parole, and agreed to testify against Glossip. The law required Sneed‘s testimony be corroborated, and the jury was asked to determine whether it was corroborated in the trial court‘s instructions.
¶6 Among the corroborating evidence noted in the direct appeal was that Barry Van Treese was the owner of the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City. Richard Glossip worked as the manager, and he lived on the premises with his girlfriend D-Anna Wood. Glossip hired Justin Sneed to do maintenance work at the motel. By all credible accounts, Sneed was under Glossip‘s control.
¶7 In the early morning hours of January 14, 1997, Sneed entered room 102 and bludgeoned Van Treese to death with a baseball bat. Sneed then went to Glossip‘s room and told him he had killed Van Treese and that a window was broken during the attack. Glossip told D-Anna Wood that two drunks had broken out a window.
¶8 Glossip went to Van Treese‘s room to help cover the busted window, but later denied seeing Van Treese‘s body. Glossip told Sneed to drive Van Treese‘s car to a nearby parking lot and retrieve money that would be under the seat. The envelope contained $4,000.00, which Glossip divided with Sneed. Police later recovered $1,700.00 from Sneed and $1,200.00 from Glossip.
¶9 That morning, Billye Hooper noticed that Van Treese‘s car was gone and asked Glossip where it was located. Glossip told Hooper that Van Treese left to obtain supplies to repair and remodel rooms. Glossip told the housekeeper that he and Sneed would clean the downstairs rooms, including 102. Glossip, Wood, and part owner and security guard Cliff Everhart later drove around looking for Van Treese. Glossip kept Everhart away from Room 102.
¶10 Later, Everhart and Oklahoma City Police Sgt. Tim Brown began discussing Glossip‘s conflicting statements, so they decided to check Room 102 on their own. At about 10:00 p.m. they discovered Van Treese‘s body in his room. Glossip later told investigators that he was deceitful because he felt like he was involved in the crime; he said he was not trying to protect Sneed.
¶11 Sneed later told investigators and testified at trial that Glossip offered him $10,000.00 to kill Van Treese. Glossip feared he would be fired due to discrepancies in the motel‘s finances, so he employed Sneed to kill Van Treese. Sneed has never come forward stating that he wishes to recant or change his trial testimony.
¶12 This case has been thoroughly investigated and reviewed in numerous appeals. Glossip has been given unprecedented access to the prosecution files, including work product, yet he has not provided this Court with sufficient information that would convince this Court to overturn the jury‘s determination that he is guilty of first-degree murder and should be sentenced to death based on the murder for remuneration or promise of remuneration aggravating circumstance. His new application provides no additional information which would cause this Court to vacate his conviction or sentence.
¶13 Glossip is filing this latest application for post-conviction relief because the Oklahoma Attorney General recently turned over a box of “prosecutor‘s notes” to his appellate attorneys. The Attorney General previously turned over seven (7) boxes of material in September 2022. Issues surrounding the material in these boxes were raised in two separate applications for post-conviction relief in 2022. This latest box (box 8) was turned over on January 27, 2023. Petitioner claims that this application is being made within sixty (60) days of the discovery of the evidence in box 8, as required by Rule 9.7, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2023).
¶14 Glossip also states that this application is not his full and final presentation of these claims. He seeks leave to amend and/or supplement this application when he has had the opportunity to fully develop the claims. He states that the Attorney General has no objection to this request.
¶15 Glossip‘s request to amend is not well taken. The Oklahoma Statutes provide that:
All grounds for relief that were available to the applicant before the last date on which an application could be timely filed not included in a timely application shall be deemed waived.
No application may be amended or supplemented after the time specified under this section. Any amended or supplemental application filed after the time specified under this section shall be treated by the Court of Criminal Appeals as a subsequent application.
III.
¶16 Glossip raises five propositions in support of this subsequent post-conviction appeal. Again, this Court‘s review is limited by the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Title
¶17 These time limits and the post-conviction procedure act preserve the legal principle of finality of judgment. Sporn v. State, 2006 OK CR 30, ¶ 6, 139 P.3d 953, 954, Malicoat v. State, 2006 OK CR 25, ¶ 3, 137 P.3d 1234, 1235, Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003). This Court‘s rules and our case law, however, do not bar the raising of a claim of factual innocence at any stage. Slaughter, 2005 OK CR 6, ¶ 6, 108 P.3d at 1054. Innocence claims are the Post-Conviction Procedure Act‘s foundation. Id.
¶18 Claims of factual innocence must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
IV.
¶19 In order to prevail on his factual innocence claim, Glossip urges this Court to re-examine the previous claim of actual innocence along with what he calls new evidence. The items he relies upon in this new post-conviction application do not meet the threshold showing that Glossip is factually innocent.
¶20 Glossip first submits an affidavit from Paul Melton who was incarcerated with Justin Sneed after the murder. Melton previously provided an affidavit in 2016. The current affidavit is not substantially different from the one provided in 2016. Now, however, time has passed, and Melton‘s recollection is more detailed. Because the affidavit basically contains the same information available in previous applications, the matter is barred under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. We are not convinced that the affidavit shows that Glossip is factually innocent. The affidavit merely provides impeachment evidence without showing that the outcome would be different.6
¶21 His second affidavit is from a medical doctor, Peter Speth, who attempts to discredit the medical examiner‘s report regarding Van Treese‘s cause of death. Dr. Speth provided a report to Glossip‘s attorneys in 2015. Glossip submitted medical affidavits attacking the medical examiner in his 2015 post-conviction application. This Court found, in 2015, that
This is a claim that could have been raised much earlier on direct appeal or in a timely original application through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Furthermore, we find that the facts underlying this claim are not sufficient when viewed in light of the evidence as a whole to show that no reasonable fact finder would have found Glossip guilty or would have rendered the penalty of death. Moreover, Glossip has not suffered a miscarriage of justice based on this claim.
Glossip v. State, No. PCD-2015-820, slip op. at 7 (Okl.Cr. Sept. 26, 2015).
¶22 There is nothing extraordinarily new in this affidavit; therefore, further review of this matter is barred under Oklahoma law. Moreover, the information is insufficient to cause this Court to believe that Glossip is factually innocent.
V.
¶24 Glossip claims in Propositions One and Two that the State withheld material, exculpatory evidence. Even if this claim overcomes procedural bar, the facts do not rise to the level of a Brady violation.7 To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence that was favorable to him or exculpatory, and that the evidence was material. Brown v. State, 2018 OK CR 3, ¶ 102, 422 P.3d 155, 175. Material evidence must create a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed. Id. 2018 OK CR 3, ¶ 103, 422 P.3d at 175. The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense or affected the outcome does not establish materiality. Id.
¶25 Glossip claims that the State failed to disclose evidence of Justin Sneed‘s mental health treatment and that Sneed lied about his mental health treatment to the jury. Though the State in its response now concedes that this alleged false testimony combined with other unspecified cumulative errors warrant post-conviction relief, the concession alone cannot overcome the limitations on successive post-conviction review.8 See
¶26 This issue is one that could have been presented previously, because the factual basis for the claim was ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence, and the facts are not sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the alleged error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense or would have rendered the penalty of death.
¶27 Sneed, in 1997, underwent a competency examination by Dr. Edith King.9 The State avers that this examination noted Sneed‘s lithium prescription. This report was available to previous counsel, so counsel knew or should have known about Sneed‘s mental health issues. Furthermore, Sneed testified at trial that he was given lithium while at the county jail prior to trial, but he didn‘t know why. Counsel did not question Sneed further on his mental health condition, which counsel knew about or should have known about. It is likely counsel did not want to inquire about Sneed‘s mental health due to the danger of showing that he was mentally vulnerable to Glossip‘s manipulation and control. Moreover, and controlling here, is the fact that this issue could have been and should have been raised, with reasonable diligence, much earlier than this fifth application for post-conviction relief.
¶28 The evidence, moreover, does not create a Napue10 error. Defense counsel was aware or should have been aware that Sneed was taking lithium at the time of trial. This fact was not knowingly concealed by the prosecution. Sneed‘s previous evaluation and his trial testimony revealed that he was under
¶29 Glossip next claims that the State failed to disclose that witness Kayla Pursley viewed a video tape recording of the Sinclair gas station taken the night of the murder. Kayla Pursley testified at trial that there were cameras at the station for the inside but not the outside. She testified that Sneed came in the station at around 2:00-2:30 a.m. No further inquiry was made about the cameras by either side during the trial. Arguably, the video tape was not disclosed to Glossip prior to trial, nor was it utilized at trial, and it has not been discovered as of this date. Pursley, prior to trial, possibly told prosecutors that she viewed the tape to see when Sneed came in the store.
¶30 Again, this issue could have been presented much earlier. Counsel should have known that there were cameras at the station in reading the trial transcript, and could have inquired about possible video tapes. Issues about missing tapes could have been raised much sooner. Glossip has waived this issue for review.
¶31 Obviously, the tape could have corroborated both Sneed‘s testimony and Pursley‘s testimony. Glossip offers mere speculation that the tape might have been exculpatory. He cannot show that the tape was material under the law.
¶32 Next, Glossip claims that the State failed to disclose details from witness statements that conflicted with other evidence. One such statement relates to the amount of money spent on repairs after the murder. One witness testified they spent $2,000.00-$3,000.00 for repairs and the motel was in disrepair because of Glossip‘s negligence rather than the lack of money. Another person “Bill Sunday” possibly told prosecutor Gary Ackley they spent $25,000.00 for repairs. The amount spent presents a conflict, but it does not help Glossip. The theory was that Glossip was negligent in his job, he expected to be fired, and he chose to have Van Treese killed instead of being fired. There was money for repairs, but Glossip didn‘t do the repairs. This contradiction hurts, rather than helps Glossip.
¶33 Glossip next cites to notes by prosecutor Connie Pope Smothermon discovered in box 8. Glossip speculates that the notes relate to items sold by him. Glossip‘s theory at trial was that the money he had was from selling some of his items, rather than money stolen from Van Treese in conjunction with the murder.
¶34 Glossip speculates that these notes regarding amounts of money were amounts learned from Cliff Everhart. Everhart testified that Glossip sold some items for around $250.00-$300.00. The notes do not clearly have an amount of money. There is no factual basis for this part of the claim. Moreover, Glossip has not shown that this information is material.
¶35 Next, Glossip raises a claim regarding the now missing Sinclair station video mentioned above. Glossip previously raised issues regarding this missing tape in Case No. PCD-2022-589. There was no dispute that a tape was retrieved from the Sinclair gas station, or that Sneed visited the station. Sneed testified that he was there before the murder. This claim is waived, as a claim regarding the missing tape could have been raised much earlier.
¶36 Glossip claims that he has now learned that witness Pursley possibly watched the video to confirm that she saw Sneed in the station at around 2:15 a.m. Glossip says this tape could have been helpful to the defense. That is far from being material. The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense or affected the outcome does not establish materiality. Brown, 2018 OK CR 3, ¶ 103, 422 P.3d at 175.
¶37 In Proposition Three Glossip claims that the prosecution tried to change Sneed‘s testimony to include the fact that in addition to beating Van Treese with a baseball bat, he also attempted to stab Van Treese.
¶38 Glossip admits that this claim was raised in a previous application, but he has new information to support this claim. Despite Glossip‘s argument, this claim is substantially the same as the previous claim presented in Proposition Three in Case No. PCD-2022-819. This claim is barred under our rules.
VII.
¶39 Lastly, in Proposition Five, Glossip raises a cumulative error claim, combining the propositions in this application with issues raised in previous applications. Only claims argued in this application may be combined under this claim. Coddington v. State, 2011 OK CR 21, ¶ 22, 259 P.3d 833, 840. His cumulative error claim must be denied. A cumulative error claim is baseless when this Court fails to sustain any of the alleged errors raised. Id.
¶40 Petitioner‘s reliance on Valdez v. State, 2002 OK CR 20, 46 P.3d 703, to overcome the procedural bars to claims waived or barred is, likewise, not persuasive. None of his claims convince this Court that these alleged errors have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Valdez, 2002 OK CR 20, ¶ 28, 46 P.3d at 710-11.
VIII.
¶41 This Court has thoroughly examined Glossip‘s case from the initial direct appeal to this date. We have examined the trial transcripts, briefs, and every allegation Glossip has made since his conviction. Glossip has exhausted every avenue and we have found no legal or factual ground which would require relief in this case. Glossip‘s application for post-conviction relief is denied. We find, therefore, that neither an evidentiary hearing nor discovery is warranted in this case.
¶42 Further, because Glossip has not made the requisite showing of likely success and irreparable harm, he is not entitled to a stay of execution. We have denied the application for relief; therefore, his reasons for a stay are without merit. The Legislature has set forth parameters for this Court in setting execution dates and in issuing stays of execution.
Lockett v. State, 2014 OK CR 3, ¶ 3, 329 P.3d 755, 757. The joint request for a stay does not meet the standards of the statute. This Court has found no credible claims to prevent the carrying out of Glossip‘s sentence on the scheduled date.Our authority to grant a stay of execution is limited by
22 O.S.2011, § 1001.1(C) . The language of § 1001.1(C) is clear. This Court may grant a stay of execution only when: (1) there is an action pending in this Court; (2) the action challenges the death row inmate‘s conviction or death sentence; and (3) the death row inmate makes the requisite showings of likely success and irreparable harm.
CONCLUSION
¶43 After carefully reviewing Glossip‘s fifth application for post-conviction relief, we conclude that he is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, Glossip‘s application for post-conviction relief, and related matters are DENIED. The joint application for a stay of execution in Case No. D-2005-310 is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2023), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITONER:
WARREN GOTCHER
GOTCHER & BEAVER
323 E CARL ALBERT AVENUE
McALESTER, OK 74501
DONALD R. KNIGHT
7852 S. ELATI STREET
SUITE 201
LITTLETON, CO 80120
JOSEPH J. PERKOVICH
PHILLIPS BLACK, INC.
P.O. BOX 4544
NEW YORK, NY 10163
AMY P. KNIGHT
KNIGHT LAW FIRM, P.C.
3849 E. BROADWAY BLVD # 288
TUCSON, AZ 85716
JOHN R. MILLS
PHILLIPS BLACK, INC.
1721 BROADWAY
SUITE 201
OAKLAND, CA 94612
JOSEPH L. WELLS
P.O. BOX 720597
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73172
ATTORNEY FOR AMICI
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
GENTNER F. DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
313 N.E. 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
OPINION BY: LEWIS, J.
HUDSON, V.P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Specially Concur
MUSSEMAN, J.: Concur
WINCHESTER, J.11: Concur
GLOSSIP v. STATE
PCD-2023-267; D-2005-310
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
April 20, 2023
Lumpkin, J., Specially Concur:
¶1 Historians have documented that as some of this nation‘s founders contemplated its creation, John Adams wrote a series of
¶2 For over 20 years the facts, evidence, and law relating to this case have been reviewed in detail by judges and their staffs through every stage of appeal allowed under our Constitution. At no level of review has a court determined error in the trial proceeding of this Petitioner nor has there been a showing of actual innocence. As the Court‘s opinion notes, finality of judgments is a foundational principle of our system of justice. Petitioner has received every benefit offered by our system of justice and now his conviction and sentence are final. For these reasons, and the analysis set forth in the opinion, I concur in the judgment of the Court and in the denial of this application.
Notes
8. . . . if a subsequent application for post-conviction relief is filed after filing an original application, the Court of Criminal Appeals may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the . . . subsequent application, unless:
a. the application contains claims and issues that have not been and could not have been presented previously in a timely original application or in a previously considered application filed under this section, because the legal basis for the claim was unavailable, or
b. (1) the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims and issues have not and could not have been presented previously in a timely original application or in a previously considered application filed under this section, because the factual basis for the claim was unavailable as it was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before that date, and
c. (2) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the alleged error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense or would have rendered the penalty of death.
Wright v. State, 2001 OK CR 19, ¶ 22, 30 P.3d 1148, 1152.Due process requires the State to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence favorable to an accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d [104] (1972), Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959).