Littlejohn v. State

(ICE) Enforcement tion and Customs of the 2008 OK CR 12 Department Security. Homeland I also Keary LITTLEJOHN, Appellant Lamar opinion portions concur with the of the find- timely ing Department that onee the failed to

respond by notification sheriffs as- Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of suming custody of Petitioners within the time law, by allowed federal no further detention No. D-2005-237. by was warranted the law of this I State. fully opinion therefore concur with the to the Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. extent it concludes the Petitioners have March ongoing by shown that their confinement any authority Respondents is without state they

and that are entitled to the writ of Lastly, corpus. for the reasons stat-

habeas by majority, agree I

ed the Petition- to demonstrate an entitlement

ers have failed prohibition.

to a writ of however, I agree, cannot with those (1)

portions majority opinion that:

purport propriety judge address of a

questioning a defendant about his or her (2) status;

citizenship reach sweeping by

constitutional conclusion mere assertion statute,

that "[nlo administrative rule or ex- constitutionally require

ecutive can order or bench, judge inquire

allow" from the into

any subject violations of law that are not the controversy court;

of the case or before the comment on releasing the wisdom of

aliens from state detention when it is not they

even clear that would be held deten-

tion federal authorities while their immi-

gration adjudicated being status is under fed-

eral law. necessary question presented The

decision in this case is not under ‍​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‍what cir- judge may question

cumstances a a defen- status,

dant citizenship about his or her nor

is it whether the courts are State

"agencies" constitutionally be sub-

jected legislative to certain enactments. The here, question any to be answered as in action, simply

habeas whether the Petition-

ers' detention is lawful. Discussion of these bearing legality

other matters no has detention, therefore,

of the Petitioners' view, my constitutes dictum at best and an advisory opinion

unconstitutional at worst. Albert, Law, Attorney

John at Oklahoma OK, McBride, City, Attorney and Michael at Law, OK, City, attorneys Oklahoma for de- fendant at trial. Elliott,

Sandra Assistant Attorney, District OK, City, attorney Oklahoma for The State at trial. Law, Autry, Attorney

David Oklahoma OK, City, attorney appellant appeal. for Edmondson, Attorney W.A. Drew General Oklahoma, Whittaker, Robert Assistant General, Attorney OK, City, Oklahoma attor- neys appeal. for The State on OPINION JOHNSON, C. Vice-Presiding Judge. T1 Appellant, Keary Littlejohn, Lamar charged in County Oklahoma District Court, CF-2002-2384, Case No. with the (21 Degree crimes of Felony First Murder ©.8.2001, 701.7(B)) (Count 1) § Conspir- and (21 acy Robbery to Commit with Firearms 421, 801) (Count 2). §§ As to sought Count The penalty State the death alleged aggravating and three circumstances handgun to a second Hamilton handed (1) murder was committed support: King and prosecu- King, and that Maсklin avoiding arrest or Vernon purpose for Rog- approached great got risk out of the car and tion; Appellant created then (8) there person; paying gasoline than one he finished to more ers as death Appellant would probability existed video- to his vehicle. A surveillance returned store, acts of violence future criminal admitted commit the convenience tape from society. continuing threat trial, pose would men ac- showed two into evidence through January 24 Feb- held Jury trial was force him Rogers attempting to costing P. the Honorable Susan ruary 2005before police told into his оwn vehicle.1 Ap- Caswell, jury found Judge. The District ran Rogers broke free and back that when counts, and charged on both guilty as pellant store, Macklin fired several shots toward the years impris- of ten a sentence recommended King left the seene at him. Macklin fine on the and a onment $5000 vehicle, and Hamil Rogers's Appellant while charge, after a murder As to the charge. they all arrived away in the car had sped ton jury proceeding sentencing separate single from a Rogers died at the scene in. aggravating of all three found the existence gunshot wound.2 .88-caliber a sentence and recommended cirеumstances Galbreath, Appellant's one of T4 Tashia formally sentenced Appellant was of death. Appellant at that girlfriends, testified trial 2, 2005. on March night question in and asked her on the called charged jointly with Appellant T2 evening news on television. watch the her to Hamilton, Macklin, and Vernon Lewis Kevin did, "breaking report news" and saw a She robbery the armed King in connection with later, robbery. A time she short about Jr., in front Gregory Rogers, murder of her said, and Hamilton came to Appellant City convenience store an of Oklahoma replay of they watched a apartment, where alleged that the 2002. The State Mаrch received a report. Appellant then the news rob- commit an armed conspired men four and Hamilton phone, cell and he call on his anoth- one bery, they that aided and abetted later with They returned a short time left. gunpoint, at Rogers's automobile er to steal Macklin, men watched and the four King and gunshot wound Rogers died of a and that Gal- coverage of the event. additional news robbery, thus during the commission he Appellant that Macklin tell breath heard eriminally liable for both men making all four managed get Rogers Rogers because shot felony murder. conspiracy According to Gal at his facе. good a look that trial, dispute did not Appellant 13 At up in breath, wrapped their firearms the men a in the commission of Rogers was killed Several hid them in her closet. a shirt and part of deny he that he was robbery, nor did later, by Hamil- accompanied days Appellant, only strategy was to robbery plan. His Gentry, to Gal- Lynlea came girlfriend ton's triggerman. that he was not emphasize guns. apartment and retrieved breath's erime, Appellant was after the Several weeks jury Appellant guilty of both Ap- found by detectives. T5 The arrested and interviewed capi- In felony murder. conspiracy and and his detectives that he pellаnt told the presented evi- ‍​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‍tal-sentencing stage, the State driving around town companions were three in at involved Appellant had been dence that and decided they Rogers's vehicle when saw attempts to rob driv- other armed least two handing a admitted Appellant take it. vehicles, "car-jackings," and or of their ac- ers Kevin Macklin to handgun to .38-caliber had, fact, in he and his co-defendants that Lew- that robbery. He claimed complish the the men Rogers, left the vehicle or even King Macklin shot Appellant assisted claimed in, suggest- never contested Rogers. evidence and the State approаching Other had arrived in King, claim. have been the Hamilton, ed that not However, as assisting in the effort. one Macklin Galbreath testified below, Tashia discussed shooting, Rogers's vehicle day 2. The after they Appellant arrived when Hamilton was Oklahoma in northeast abandoned was found suggests that it apartment, at least which her suggested that City. the vehicle The condition of Macklin, King scene, with who left the crime attempted it on fire. to set someone had Appellant claimed he never Rogers's vehicle. person robbery legal predicate another of his vehi- attempted first-degree to rob is murder, just they approаched Grego- cle hours before to commit armed robbery ry Appellant is not. Rogers. Appellant testified the sen- contends that the admitting complicity impermis- trial court's instruction created an tencing stage, ie., robbery maintaining presumption, any- sible conclusive plan but he did not hearing conspires evi- one who even to commit Rogers. shoot After additional armed robbery mitigation pun- necessarily guilty first-degree is aggravation dence in ishment, jury Appel- murder, recommended that if the attempted fact put lant be to death for his involvement in during attempt. dies someone Gregory Rogers's murder. sys 110 It is fundamental to our еighteen propositions T6 raises justice that, tem of before a conviction can be find that of error. Because we had, prove, beyond the State must a reason vacated, death sentence must be we address doubt, comprising every able the facts ele capital-sentencing those issues that war- Winship, ment of the offense. re relief, First, however, rant we address the (1970). 25 L.Ed.2d 368 guilt-innocence stage issues related to the Instructions that force the presume the trial. particular result from certain set of facts process, can violate doing due if so invades In Proposition ¢7 jury's province considering the suffi trial court claims the erred its instruction ciency of particular the evidence to each as co-conspirator liability. on the law of Be generally clement of the offense. See Sand objection Appellant cause makes his current Montana, 510, strom v. 442 U.S. 99 S.Ct. appeal, for the first time we review (1979) 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 89 (disapproving of State, plain Hogan error. v. requiring jury instruction presume to that "a ¶ 907, 189P.3d 928. person ordinary consequences the intends of 1 8 The instruction at issue read: acts"). voluntary his conspiracy entered into When to do an jury T11 properly The instructed act, conspirators responsi- unlawful the are pеrsons that all who either commit acts con pursuant ble for all that is said and done to crime, stituting a knowingly, or who and with conspiracy by co-conspirators the their un- intent, criminal aid and abet in the commis purpose fully til the has been accom- crime, equally guilty sion of the are princi as plished. persons conspire If or more two pals. jury properly The was also instructed felony, to combine to commit a each is Appellant guilty before it could find of criminally responsible for the acts of his hence, Robbery Firearm-and, Felony associates and confederates in furtherance (1) Murder-it Appel first hаd to find design, of if common the eriminal act thor- lant participated wrongful taking and oughly results from the common enter- carrying away personal property belong of prise, or where the connection between another, fear, ing through to force or reasonably apparent. them is (2) firearm; of means that Appellant's Appellant 19 per- claims this instruction own "inseparable part" conduct formed an of jury mitted the to "short-cireuit" its fact- 0.8.2001, 172, robbery. 701.7(B), §§ 21 duties, finding allowing it to him convict of (2nd) 801; 2-5, 2-6, 2-9, OUJI-CR Nos. 4 merely by finding murder that he 64, 4-65. conspired robbery, to commit the and with- $12 specifically out finding actively par- that he trial counsel con ticipated robbery Appellant itself. ceded that the court's instruction was an points conspiracy that a law; out to commit a accurate statement of the simply he legally crime is completed complained distinct from the it was not taken from the crime, may guilty conspir- and that one Jury be of Oklahoma Uniform Instructions. Trial crime, acy regardless to commit a of whether courts should use the Uniform Instructions he guilty completed could be found of the possible. Marques-Burrola whenever v. State, 14, ¶26, 749, 157 P.3d points crime. He also out that while armed

741 liability was a member find Yet, co-conspirator seope Instruc- by the Uniform conspiracy. addressed alleged is not (Znd) 2-16- Nos. Compare OUJI-CR tions. the trial 114 It be error for instructions) to OUJI-CR (conspiracy 2-22 believe, jury to to tell the what facts court (2nd) seope aider- (addressing the 2-5 No. responsibility to it is the trial court's but liability).3 and-abettor law, including the jury instruct is whether T The ultimate issue 13 lability, it pertains criminal as extent of whole, instructions, fairly state the as a taken The particular in a case. dis the evidence State, 2005 OK Mitchell v. applicable law. conspiracy and the com tinctions between 1196, 15, ¶70, 1214. The in P.3d 120 CR Appel affect simply do not pleted offense did, fact, complained of here struсtion It is true culpability under these facts. lant's important the law on this accurately state conspiring to com guilty can be that one 47, OK CR Hatch v. 1988 issue. See goal being crime without ever mit a 1377, 1382; ¶19, Fox v. 1974 accomplished. It is also true 63; ¶8, parte Ex CROK robbery statutorily- armed is not a to commit 321, 328, 118 P. Hayes, 6 Okl.Cr. first-degree felony predicate for enumerated (1911).4 require the did not The instruction co-conspirator But if even one does murder. of the offense presume an element then, plan, un consummating succeed Compare automatically fulfilled. Sand law, equally co-conspirators all are der strom, 99 S.Ct. U.S. crime as well as guilty the cоnsummated (1979). place the Nor did it L.Ed.2d Hatch, 47 at conspiracy. disprove any particu burden on ¶ Fox, 1382; 662 P.2d at 1974OK CR Compare Mulla lar of the offense. element ¶8, Appellant does not 524 P.2d at 63. Wilbur, ney part plan, dispute that he took jury in (disapproving of L.Ed.2d 508 Gregory Rogers was killed or that prove homi requiring defendant struction Furthermore, Appel- commission thereof. but done a heat premeditated was not cide conspiring to to more than take lant admitted jury not Simply put, the was passion). of robbery; actively aided part potential in a he pre any particular was instructed that fact by handing Macklin a in the crime Kevin to rеnder conspiracy, a or sumed to indicate it. accomplish firearm to Every fact neces a of it. Appellant member {15 the followed its presume every of the of We sary to determine element required to proof was jury to instructions on what conspiracy was left to the fense of felony Ryder Appellant of murder. simply-and ac convict The instruction determine. 856, 2, ¶83, State, P.3d 2004 OK CR 83 v. co-conspirator curately-stated the law of and instruc- presented the jury were to 875. On evidence liability, applicable only the if common de- in furtherance of such the others expanded scope liability to of that attaches 3. The Perkins, (citation omitted). something average co-conspirators sign" the Criminal is that Cf. unlikely ed.1969) (citations juror (2nd to understand. We refer this is and s at 632-33 Law overseeing drafting of issue to the Committee omitted) ("When conspiracy is formed a criminal Jury Instructions for Oklahoma Uniform conspirator a thereof 'is lia- while member each adding an instruction cases, to consider criminal act, every the act and and is bound ble for long-stand- with which is consistent on this issue each and all of the declaration of conspirators, ing Oklahoma law. pursuance or furtherance of or made in done present conspiracy' ... еven if he was not said per- Hayes, two or more we held: "Where 4. time, act declaration is other whose or or the together purpose for the of accom- sons combine upon presently on trial. If the relied is not act, every plishing act and decla- some unlawful danger- conspiracy a purpose is to commit of the pursuance persons of of such ration of each having the risk of each member runs ous plan to original and with reference concerted he has homicide, even if the venture end object law, of is, the common contemplation deadly use of force. the оthers to make forbidden all, and is there- the act declaration of them guilty one them each murder Hence is original against of them. of evidence each one of if fore attempted perpetration or words, commits homicide every person who enters into a In other burgla- agreed-upon or perpetration an design a purpose in law held to be common or is of added). ") (emphasis by any ry every party act which be done 742 alleged felony Robbery given, no rational trier of fact could with a

tions Fire 701.7(B). 0.9$.2001, a § was member arm. 21 have concluded The crime of princi not conspiracy, but wаs also Conspiracy Robbery Commit Fire robbery that pal resulted the death requires proof agreement arm of an to com Rogers.5 Proposition 1 is denied. Gregory robbery, plus mit some overt act done 0.9.2001, agreement. furtherance of the 21 Proposition Appellant T16 In §§ conspiracy 428. The crime of does that his convictions for both First claims depend goal conspiracy not of the Murder, Felony Degree Conspiracy achieved, being disappear nor does it if the Felony, punish constitute double Commit a goal inis fact achieved. While Oklahoma law 0.8.2001, § Appel 11.6 ment and violate requires an act in оvert furtherance ‍​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‍of the statutory lant that Oklahoma's ban concedes 0.8.2001, conspiratorial agreement, see 21 punishment" on is not violated when "double § justification treating the historical for separate are and dis the offenses issue conspiracy separate as a crime is tinct, requiring proof. Hale v. dissimilar parties combination of several for a criminal State, 7, ¶4, 888 P.2d 1995 OK CR purpose is an evil in itself. See United occasion, 1029. On more than one we have Felix, 378, 389-390, States v. 508 U.S. conspiracy a crime reiterated distinct (1992)(cit 1377, 1384, S.Ct. 118 LEd.2d 25 offense, reject completed from the and have 532, 542, ing Bayer, United States v. argument conspiracy that a to commit ed the (the 1394,1399, 91 L.Ed. 1654 "merges" completed into the crime. crime conspiracy essence of is the confederation to ¶¶ State, 62-65, See Jones v. OK CR crime; agreement commit a "the to do the 521, 542-48; State, Littlejohn 128 P.8d v. itself")). act is distinct the act [eriminal] from 75, ¶30, 901, 909-910; CR 989 P.2d OK State, 84, ¶¶8-12, Huckaby v. definition, Conspiracy, by requires 450. Because P.2d did proof agreement of an per between several below, not claim raise this we review sons; felony requires murder agree no such plain error. Kinchion v. Felony requires proof ment. murder ¶ 684. underlying felony completed or at noted, tempted; and as we have

T17 The definition of erimes is require does not goal the criminal to be Legislature, authority and that left to the completed, much less that someone be killed necessarily guides interpretation § our 11. process. Neither crime is an essential purposes Legislature's For ban punishment, particular component Harjo double whether a of the other. See 53, ¶18, course of conduct constitutes one or more conspiracy Because the essence of is the depends heavily Legisla crimes how the agreement to combine efforts for a criminal sought ture has defined the crimes to be purpose, regardless of State, purpose whether that prosecuted. 48, Davis v. achieved, is ever the ¶13, 124, 126-27; State, conspiracy crimes to 993 P.2d Ellis v. 35, ¶30, 985, robbery, felony 834 P.2d commit murder commit robbery, ted in the course of the are not Degree 118 The crime of First aimed at the "act same or omission." Felony requires proof Murder that a homi cide occurred in the Appellant commission of one of T 20 presents claims his case an case, specified felony situation, several exceptional crimes. In this spe- because the State Sandstrom-type provides, § 5. Even if we were find a pertinent part, to error 6. 21 0.8. in of, Appellant complains in the instruction we punishable "an act or omission which is made in beyond would still find it harmless a reasonable ways by provisions different different of this code doubt, Appellant based on evidence that was in may punished provisions be under either of such robbery. fact an aider and abettor in the Cf. punished ... but in no case can it be under more Clark, Rose v. 478 U.S. 106 S.Ct. than one." (1986) (jury imper- L.Ed.2d 460 instructions that missibly proof shift burden of defendant disprove subject element of crime are to harm analysis). less-error ly given, allegedly cifically argued participation that his because he was under the conspiracy guilty rendered him of both con drugs influenсe of when he was interviewed. murder, and because the spiracy and hearing 1238 A on the voluntariness (discussed Propo instructions trial court's Appellant's statements was held trial. before 1) argument. In supported that other sition parties agreed The to let the trial court rule words, Appellant claims because he solely videotape on the issue based for the mur culpable could have been found interview, recording of the and without a co- der under two different theories-as any benefit of additional evidence or wit- robbery plan, or a full- conspirator to the as Appellant's nesses. The trial court found fledged robbery- aider and abettor voluntarily statements to be made and admit- merely a facet of the each offense described tape during ted a redacted version of the argument act. same criminal This confuses During capital-sentencing phase trial. conspirator liability spe with the the law of trial, time, Appellant, the first underlying charged cific each offense. facts claimed that he was under the influence of there situations where evi While be PCP when he was arrested and interviewed participation conspiracy, of one's in a dence Appellant detectives. now claims trial рarticipation of one's and evidence counsel should made a forceful have more crime, completed overlap as to render so argument against admitting videotaped act, single them facets of a criminal this is disagree. interview. We Appellant not one of them. and his three ¶24 Thedetectives' interview town, accomplices drove around with fire Appellant lengthy. Ap was somewhat arms, looking Appellant for someone to rob. pellant properly right was advised of his part thus took to commit an any questioning silence before about accom armed well before he and his began. videotape Appel crimes The shows picked Rogers target. plices Gregory as their offering vague, lant information el Jones, Section is not violated here. See false, liptical, many finally times before ¶65, 2006 OK CR 5 128 P.3d at 543. settling on a more detailed account of what Proposition is denied. happened. Whether or not {21 Proposition contends any intoxicating under the influence of sub prosecutor deprived him misconduct of a time, stance at his confession is Appellant's fair trial. All one of com but involuntary in the if constitutional sense plaints proposition capital in this relate to the willingness intoxiсation affected his and/or trial, sentencing phase given our information, ability provide or withhold sentence, decisionto vacate death police advantage took unfair of that con they remaining are rendered moot. The sole Connelly, dition. See v. Colorado complaint prosecutor's concerns com 515, 520, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 conspirator liability ments on in the first (1986); McHam v. stage of the trial. These comments essen ¶ 31, 672; Ulery tially tracked the instruction discussed ¶ OK CR 16 n. 353 n. 27. Proposition 1. We found no error Clearly, neither was the case here. While instruction, impro and we likewise find no Appellant appears during the inter nervous priety prosecutor's comments. Ham view, provided personal he detailed informa State, 7, ¶59, mon v. 2000 OK CR 999 P.2d (address, number, telephone tion social secu 1082,1096. number, etc.), rity and his to the answers 4, Proposition Appellant questions 4 22 In claims his detectives' about the crime were coherent, constitutionally initially incomplete trial counsel rendered defi- even if or false. performance stages interviewing cient both of the trial. At no time did the detectives guilt- improper exploit Appellant's this claim as to We first consider to the use methods stage. Appellant patient innocence contends his emotionаl The detectives were state. failing Appellant, allowing provide counsel was ineffective for to move for with him to infor suppression police. Ap- supports to mation he The record his statement as wished. pellant ruling Appellant's trial that state- claims this statement was involuntari- court's voluntary. mitigation phase See Smith two witnesses in the police

ments to were ¶ 16, 46, 1155, State, trial, 157P.3d v. 2007 OK CR Appellant According and his mother. facts, State, 34, stipulated Appellant to the conducted 1171; Coddington v. 2006 OK CR 437, 448; ¶¶37-39, 142 P.3d investigation Johnson v. no further into other sources of 62, ¶¶40-41, evidence, State, mitigating adequately nor did he prepare Appellant either or his mother be- 918, 926-27. Because we find they parties stipulated fore testified. The made, voluntarily police was statement to that, had trial counsel conducted a reason- failing trial counsel was not deficient for to ably adequate investigation, he would have challenge forcefully. its admission more Sa mitigating discovered number of factors ¶ 21, 17, 852 lazar v. P.2d might jury's that have affected the choice of claim denied. 734. This is (1) sentence, including: according that Appellant his 1 25 also claims trial counsel records, Appellant, mentally school while not capital-sentencing was ineffective retarded, LQ. suffered from a low and at- stage by failing adequately of the trial (2) classes; special tended education investigate, prepare, present available Appellant grew up in an environment of do- mitigating conjunction evidence. with this involving mestic abuse his mother and his claim, Appellant supplement filed a motion to (8) step-father; during Appellant's teen- record, appeal containing affidavits and years, age stepfather began selling his crack other supporting information. See Rule cocaine, began using and his mother crack 3.11(B)(B)(b),Rules the Oklahoma Court (4) cocaine; Appellant did not leаrn that O.S., Appeals, App. Criminal ch. stepfather biological his not was his father (2007). granted supple We motion to teenager, until he awas and that he subse- ment, and remanded the case to ‍​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‍the district school, home, quently quit began left evidentiary court an hearing Appel for on trouble; getting according into to a punishment-stage lant's ineffective-assistance Appellant's family, Appel- friend of who saw 1, 2007, August parties ap claim. On murder, shortly Gregory Rogers's lant after peared before the Honorable Kenneth C. Appellant upset was so and remorseful about Watson, Judge. testimony District No happened what hаd that he threatened sui- presented. Rather, accepted the State cide." factual supple information outlined in the Appellant was entitled to the mentary materials had filed with effective assistance of counsel at trial. See Court, and conceded that his trial coun generally Washington, Strickland v. constitutionally adequate sel had not done a (1984). 80 LEd.2d 674 job regard mitigating evidence.7 begin presumption We with the that coun 12, 2007, 126 On October the district adequate, sel's efforts were and that coun entitled, court submitted a detailed document part sel's decisions were of a sound trial "Agreed Findings of Fact and Conclusiоnsof 2065; strategy. Id. at S.Ct. An ¶ Law," approved by parties. drew v. counsel both claim, position Given the State's on this we prevail 198. To on a claim that counsel present Appellant's argument need not ineffective, Appellant must demonstrate great Essentially, detail. he claims that trial pro counsel's efforts and decisions were counsel did not devote sufficient time and fessionally unreasonable-so unreasonable as developing persuasive mitiga attention to undermine confidence the outcome of Strickland, tion strategy. presented only Trial counsel the trial. U.S. claim, support Supreme As further for this the Oklahoma Court. Oklahoma Bar presents proposed testimony and other informa- Albert, Association 2007 OK 163 P.3d 527. that, indicating during repre- tion the time he perform- Because our focus here counsel's Appellant, suffering sented trial counsel was case, particular ance in this and because the problems from substance abuse which contribut- performance State has conceded that counsel's ability practice. ed Appellant's to his his run deficient, punishment stage we need submitted materials show that trial counsel explore potentially affecting not the factors appearances missеd a number of court in various performance in further detail. cases, ultimately disciplined by and that he was

745 Andrew, 2068; carefully aggravating 23 at evaluated the three cir S.Ct. cases, ¶97, capital and, assuming at 198. In the the cumstances found them, support reasonably the evidence was sufficient to guarantee effec- constitutional right a reason- includes the tive counsel the court nevertheless concluded that potential ably investigation into adequate mitigation available but unused evidence might which mitigation evidence-evidence jury's could have made a difference in the jury that a sentence of death is convince a sentencing ultimate decision. this While years, the Su- appropriate. not recent makes the ultimate determination of Court deci- preme has issued number of Court performance whether trial counsel's deficient the Strickland standards applying sions relief, give great warrants we deference to preparing in unique responsibilities issue, findings the trial court's and mitigation case. See Williams v. capital only review for an abuse of discretion. Pat Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 146 § terson v. Smith, (2000), Wiggins v. 539 L.Ed.2d 389 925, 930; 8.11(B)B)(b)(iv), Rule Rules of 2527, 156 LEd.2d 471 U.S. Appeals, Oklahoma Court Criminal Title of Beard, (2003); Rompilla U.S. (2007). 18, App. The Ch. record and (2005). 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 Like- S.Ct. findings support trial detailed before us wise, applied this Court has Strickland court's conclusions. We therefore VACATE investigations, capital mitigation context of imposed in the sentence of death Count and investigations granted relief when those and REMAND FOR RESENTENCING. Our proved wanting. Malone v. 2007 OK Appellant's claim resolution of this renders 185, 223-29; 34, ¶¶101-113, P.3d CR relating capital other claims to the sentenc- ¶¶ 14 at 42- Marquez-Burrola, ing phase of the trial moot. 61, 157 P.3d at 763-68. While each of these obviously presents unique set of cases DECISION that, facts, generally common theme is their mitigation speaking, capital an uninformed 2, Conspiracy As to to Commit Count strategy paraphrase is not a sound one. To Robbery, judgment and sentence of the Strickland, Supreme Court in counsel's district court is AFFIRMED. As to Count deference, strategic decisions are entitled to Murder, Degree Felony judg- First proportion in to the amount of rea- but AFFIRMED, guilt but the sen- ment of investigation behind them. See sonable VACATED, and the case is tence of death is Strickland, 690-91, 104 S.Ct. at U.S. REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. 3.15, Pursuant to Rule Rules the Okla- of supplementary 128 The materials Appeals, Title homa Court Criminal of (2008), by Appellant App. Ch. the MANDATE is OR- raise substantial submitted questions trial counsel's effectiveness about upon delivery filing DERED issued capital sentencing stage. in observe We decision. doctrine, that, felony-murder light in Appellant's voluntary police confession to LEWIS, JJ., JOHNSON, concur. A. in his involvement essen about tially any foreclosed issue LUMPKIN, P.J., in concurs results. guilt. punishment This was a trial about CHAPEL, J., part/dissents concurs more, indicates that nothing and the record part. well aware of that fact. Trial counsel was have, have, and focused counsel could should CHAPEL, Judge, part/dissents concurs in developing a more extensive energies his part: remand, con mitigation case. the State On ¶ affirming the conviction 1 I concur performance trial in this ceded that counsel's However, remanding rather than unreasonable, this case. regard professionally triаl, I sentencing a new this matter for jury's decision to could have affected the modify to life without findings would the sentence impose the death In its sentence. First, law, two of the parole several reasons. the trial court fact and conclusions are not found aggravators three evidence, third

supported by the and the threat") only minimally,

("continuing is Second,

best, supported by the evidence. in this principals involved

the four

murder, among is the least this defendant (one

culpable, yet the other three shooter) have

which been sentenced is parole ‍​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‍or life. I am the life without

either Court, required under its

opinion that

mandatory review of death sen- sentence

tences, obligated under the federal and is pre- and state statutes to

state constitutions arbitrary capricious imposition

vent the penalty. among people If

of the death four

eligible for the same death sentence sentence,

crime, only receives the death one four, among person culpa- is less others,

ble than some of the then that death Eighth must violate the Amend-

sentence against arbitrary prohibition

ment

capricious imposition penalty. of the death my

Finally, sending it is belief this case resentencing simply

back for a waste of

judicial, prosecutorial, and defense resources.

2008 OK CIV APP 34 CORPORATION,

L & I EXPLORATION

Plaintiff/Appellee, ORC, LLC,

CHESAPEAKE

Defendant/Appellant. 104,740.

No. Oklahoma, Appeals

Court of Civil 2.

Division No.

Feb.

Case Details

Case Name: Littlejohn v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Mar 26, 2008

Citation: 181 P.3d 736

Docket Number: D-2005-237

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.