Hooks v. State
22 P.3d 231
Okla. Crim. App.
2001
Check Treatment

*1 produc defective by a injuries caused risk of to non- applied also It is t.24 engaged

suppliers because distributing goods business the part of the integral they are

public and enterprise.25 marketing producing overall courts

However, majority of liabili applying strict policy reasons

same and non-manufacturer manufacturers

ty to com product to used inapplicable suppliers defect sellers, alleged if the at least

mercial seller, prod and the not created condition essentially the same

uct is sold Today, for resale.26 acquired it was major agree with presented,

ity view. AFFIRMED.

TRIAL COURT CONCUR. 24 ALL JUSTICES CR 7 HOOKS, Appellant,

Danny Keith

v. Appellee.

STATE

No. PCD-2000-1322. of Oklahoma. of Criminal 14, 2001. 7, Crandell 5, note Corp., see note Turbine, Inc., supra; Motors DeLaval v. General Kirkland v. 5, Inc., note Co., supra; & Jones Larkin supra. Appliance 5, Motors, Inc., supra; note Brigham v. Hudson Peter 5, Co., note supra; Vance v. Tillman Equip. Dew- 10, Inc., see note supra; Moss v. Polyco, 5, note Co., supra; Chevrolet Bachrodt v. Lou son 13, see note LaFollette, supra. berry 5, Inc., Int'l, supra; note v. Rockwell Gorath Marlow Pontiac Cairns v. Bill Harrison note King supra; v. Damiron Corp., Co., Inc., T. v. Russell Keith Equipment Heights, Inc., note Richard-Ewing supra; Wynia v. Inc., Assoc., supra; Masker note Bundy & Industries, v. Altec Harber note supra; Hicks, note Wilkinson Smith, note supra; note Co., Inc., Bertsch Sell v. note supra; Court, note supra; LaRosa Superior Bank, note supra; First Nat. v. Idaho Peterson supra; Lincoln-Mercury, Co. Superior Auctioneers Tauber-Arons Axtell Ford supra; Grimes v. note Assoc., supra. Inc. Kodiak Electric note supra; *2 701.7,

§ in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-97-657. jury found two aggravating circumstances (1) each count: that Hooks previ had been ously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence person; that the murder heinous, was especially atro cious, or cruel. In accordance jury's recommendation the Honorable Daniel L. Owens sentenced Hooks to death on each count. appealed judgments sentences to this and we affirmed.1 The United Supreme States Court has not yet ruled on petition for certiorari. 15, 2000, On December filed an Application for Post-Conviction Re lief. only issues appropriately raised Oklahoma's statutes "(1) are those which: [wlere not or could not have been raised in a appeal; direct (2)[slupport a conclusion either that the out come of the trial would have been different but for the errors or that the defendant factually review, innocent."2 On this Court "(1) must determine: controverted, whether previously unresolved factual issues material legality applicant's confinement exist, whether applicant's grounds were or could have been previously raised, whether may granted. be ..."3 The Post-Conviction Procedure Act is not provide intended to appeal.4 second This Court will neither consider issues which were raised on direct are barred res judicata, nor issues which have been discuss waived because been, could have but Pate, Kevin H. Capital Post-Conviction Di- were not, raised on appeal.5 vision, Indigent System, Defense €3 In Proposition I Hooks attacks Norman, OK, Attorney Application. clemency scheme, alleg No response required. ing that currently applied it denies petitioners process. Hooks admits that CHAPEL, JUDGE: this "free-standing federal constitutional T1 Danny Keith Hooks was by jury tried claim" cannot properly addressed under and convicted of five counts of Murder in the statute. We Degree 'First in violation 0.98.1991, of 21 have repeatedly held that Oklahoma's clem 1. Hooks v. State, 2001 OK 19 P.3d 294. v. State, Hooper 1998 OK CR 22, 957 P.2d 120, denied, cert. 524 U.S. 118 S.Ct. 141 L.Ed.2d 722. 2. 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(C); 5. 22 Le v. 3. 22 O.S.Supp.1995, 1089(D)(4)(a). OK CR 1, 953 P.2d 52, 54, cert. denied, U.S. 930, 118 S.Ct. 2329, 141 L.Ed.2d 702. Evidentiary Hearing, Hooks subject for state proper not a ency scheme set necessary affidavits file the review.6 failed to has necessary disposi information ting forth also claims 14 Hooks 9.7(D)(5).10 under Rule issue of this raise failing to was ineffective comply with our request fails to case, including the "material *3 Evidentiary Motion Rules. Hooks's problems scope of and nature DENIED. this issue is Hearing on clemency current of Oklahoma's structure to include appears Hooks scheme." 15, 2000, Hooks December 16 On appellate coun that allegation larger a claim mandamus writ of for a application an filed investigate the case reasonably failed sel Judg summarily vacate his prohibition to or in regarding decisions make reasonable or death warrant. and Sentence ment three- uses a Court vestigative issues. and Sentence Judgment argues his Hooks appel of assistance ineffective prong test for are void because warrant and death actual appellate counsel did late counsel: executed him to be confined order of the claim rise to giving act ly commit designated of incarceration place so, assistance; was such if ineffective Corrections Department of deficient; if determine we performance successor). (or place his that of the Warden we will deficient was performance counsel's requires law that Oklahoma claims Hooks mis allegedly claim the substantive consider affirmatively designate documents these if that claim by appellate handled is Judg We find the place of execution.11 rev appropriate otherwise are and death warrant and Sentence ment sup facts to specific no Hooks offers iew.7 specificity. of by their lack void rendered not fail appellate counsel's beyond claim port his Death system has one prison cites clemency issue. to raise the ure execution, housed of both place Row and one that claims suggestion support his nothing to sitting prison. Trial courts in the McAlester proceedings, clemency prospective regarding passing when so note cases should capital post-convie at the even premature which are How a death warrant. issuing sentence level, for review appropriate would neither failure to do so ever, court's the trial cannot case. We in a constitutes nor these documents dooms deficient for was counsel's Applica power. of delegation unlawful appeal8 on direct this issue failure to raise is or Prohibition Mandamus a tion for Writ claims II Hooks Proposition T5 In DENIED. cruel penalty constitutes death and/or carefully reviewed have T7 We have This issue could punishment. unusual and an application been appeal and has on direct been raised not he is hearing and find that evidentiary a motion incorporates waived.9 Application for Post- to relief. entitled against argument evidentiary hearing in his Ex- for the Relief and Conviction treat we to punishment. Were DENIED. Original Jurisdiction separate ercise of aas the proposition P.2d OK CR 992 State, 1999 8. CR 989 Martinez 1999 OK e.g., State, Patton 6. State, 989; clemency pro- CR (issue premature 1999 OK Sellers P.2d 432 commenced). ceedings not Cummings had State, 1998 OK 894, 895; P.2d 973 State, 192; 1998 Darks P.2d CR 970 State, 169, 173; Douglas v. P.2d OK CR 954 192; O.S.Supp. 22 Cummings, 970 P.2d 9. 353-54; Gilbert 953 P.2d 1089(C). 727, 733; State, 22 955 P.2d OK CR 1998 In Sellers 9.7(D)(5), the Oklahoma Rules Rule subsequent clemency ain the issue reached (2000). 22, Ch.18, App. Appeals, Title Criminal claimed petition because Sellers clemency process at received he had not 1015(A) 1015(A), (B). 0.8.1991,§ already held. Hooks been Section hearing which had clemency receiving a steps place from McAles- at the several to take requires executions only. prospective 1015(B) hearing, this issue provides penitentiary. Section ter any execution. present at must be the warden P.2d at 124. Hooper, LUMPKIN, P.J., concur in results.

JOHNSON, V.P.J., STRUBHAR and

LILE, JJ., concur.

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge: Concur in

Results. concur,

1 1 I decises, based on stare dealing

discussion with ineffective assistance

of counsel. See Walker v.

327, 341-344 (Okl.Cr.1997)(Lumpkin, J.: Results). Concur in *4 I have reviewed applica Petitioner's

tion, together and author

ity provided. In accordance with the criteria set out in Braun v. 511-514

(O kl.Cr.1997), I concur with the Court's

decision that counsel's was not join

deficient and analysis Court's sought substantive claims by be raised

petitioner.

2001 OK CIV APP 46

Jeremy TEEL, Michael Plaintiff/Appellant, Stanley Ward, Norman, M. Woodrow K. Glass, Balkman, Thad H. Stanley M. Ward Offices, Norman, Law OK, for Plaintiff/Ap- WARREN, III, Richard Alpha pellant. Omega, Tau Defendants, III, Arthur Hoge, F. White, Brinda K. City, Mee, Mee Hoge, PLLP, Kappa Chapter Delta Alpha OK, City, Tau for Defendant/Appellee. Omega, Defendant/Appellee. OPINION

No. 95542. ADAMS,P.J.: Court of Civil 11 Jeremy Teel claims he was assaulted Division No. 1. Warren, Defendant Richard who was a student at the University of Oklahoma and a pledge of Kappa Delta Chapter Alpha Tau

Omega (Chapter). Alpha Tau Omega, Inc. (ATO) is the national fraternity of which Chapter part. is a Teel, According this assault occurred part because Warren was intoxicated as a result of alcohol consumed party Chapter's Warren, house. Teel sued Chap