Robinson v. State

1Q1 Particularly, well-being. had academic he was At mother admitted that she trial the lack of graded the children’s concerned about the mothers’s knowl- occasions numerous mathematics, incorrectly. give edge boy’s did the in and the papers She older grade Only high aptitude cards. in antic- in periodic children that area. complete

ipation litigation did she the parent seeking If the modification of cus- while grade reports the children received tody can there has been show that a sub- frequently being She failed home schooled. moral, change affecting the stantial which is misspelled papers. words on to correct their children, temporal or of the mental welfare beyond not go that she did She testified Fox, custody may changed. Fox v. school, algebra in that geometry she (Okla.1995). Clearly, there was grade point average had a of about 2.85. She trial court’s support ruling. evidence the biology, high highest had a D in school the record the The shows that children were took. She that science course she testified bright, being but were slowed teach- they pro- did the children when she not tell fact, In results er. there are test gressed grade. to the next regression progression. show instead schooling expert A home testified on behalf expert Even the felt she mother’s could use he home of the mother. While advocated improvement. court concluded The that the thought that the schooling and mother well-being children in educational of the doing job, agreed good he that it was jeopardy. harmful to the children’s education to making ruling, judge attempted his papers graded incorrectly. also and tests He judgment to tailor the to fit the best interests agreed used the home that the mother worst prohibit He did not children. schooling program available. He concluded schooled; rather, being children from home improvement that mother needed it in their he determined that was best inter- thought it possible teacher. he While capable to be ests schooled someone might improve, that he advocated the use she level, teaching appropriate them at (his own), program of a as well as different home, school, public in whether be at mother tutors in where the was weak. areas private ruling I not find his school. do con- being In his opinion the children edu- trary weight to the clear of the evidence. cated, do much better. but could For I would affirm the trial these reasons dispute as to whether the There is some custody. I judgment court’s as to have no actually progressed children the tute- under disagreement opinion with the Court’s other- lage court-appointed mother. A ex- their wise. children, pert that tested determined I.Q., high each the older was had

capable learning grades beyond several opinion the age.

actual In her children were learning at a rate commensurate with pointed

their abilities. She also out that actually being

children had declined after reading, home such as lan- schooled areas ROBINSON, Petitioner, Walanzo Deon guage Test scores and science. showed extremely oldest child was advanced Oklahoma, Respondent. The STATE of mathematics, could learn at tenth grade level. No. PC-96-1224. The father testified that he filed the modi- Appeals of Court of Oklahoma. Criminal

fication because he does not feel it is motion interest of children to be best 14, 1997. April ques- He educated the mother. did not par- fitness as custodial the mother’s ent. are ex- He realized children

tremely bright and is concerned for their Clark,

Katherine Appellate Jane Defense Counsel, Capital Post-Conviction Oklahoma Norman, Indigent System, ap- Defense peal for Petitioner.

OPINION DENYING APPLI- ORIGINAL CATION FOR RE- POST-CONVICTION LIEF, REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, TIME EXTENSION OF TO AMEND AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY LANE, Judge.

Petitioner Walzano Deon Robinson was by jury tried and Degree convicted of First County, Malice Murder in Oklahoma Case No. CRF-89-4791. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Bana Blasdel, Judge, District sentenced Petitioner to death. Petitioner’s conviction was af- following original firmed this Court State, Robinson v. appeal. direct 900 P.2d (Okl.Cr.1995). 389 In accordance with the recent amendments to the Uniform Post-Conviction Act, Procedure 22 O.S.Supp.1995, 1089(D)(1), § Original Ap Petitioner filed his plication for Post-Conviction Relief on Octo 4, ber application 1996.1 this first relief, post-conviction Petitioner has raised allegations four of error.2 Our consideration strictly of these claims will be limited statutory rules which authority establish our post-conviction in 22 O.S.Supp. matters. 1995, 1080, seq. et § We reiterate here the scope narrow of review available on collateral appeal. The Post-Conviction Act Procedure designed provide neither nor intended to petitioners with another State, (Okl.Cr. Fowler v. 566, 896 P.2d 569 State, 1995); (Okl. Fox v. 383, 880 P.2d 384 — denied, Cr.1994), cert -, U.S. 115 1318, (1995). S.Ct. 131 L.Ed.2d 199 The post-conviction statutes have provided never applicants very with more than limited grounds upon which to attack their final judgments. Accordingly, post-conviction claims which could prior have been raised in error, 1. alleges proposition While Petitioner's was not 2. filed four 1089(D)(1), specified § containing multiple sub-propositions. within the time limits Only each timely it proposition filed in accordance with the brief the main of error listed for each up by record, alleged schedule set this Court in Sahib Al- error is listed below. For the all State, (Okl.Cr. et propositions Mosawi at. v. P.2d 929 270 of Petitioner's of error were re- 1996). viewed and considered this Court.

105 ple finality judgment, narrowly generally we will are consid appeals but were not State, 1253, P.2d v. 889 construe amendments ered waived. Moore — denied, (Okl.Cr.), cert. U.S. that intent. reflect 1255-56 (1995); -, 215, 146 133 L.Ed.2d 116 S.Ct. proposition at his Petitioner claims first (Okl.Cr.1991), State, 370, P.2d 372 v. 823 Johnson error that Oklahoma’s amended Post-Convic denied, 926, 112 S.Ct. rt. ce 1984, Act, ap on its face and Procedure as (1992). Post-Convic 582 118 L.Ed.2d plied, is unconstitutional denies him raised and addressed tion claims were adequate him process, equal due denies judica- appeals as res previous are barred violates, among access to the courts and oth Moore, 1255; Walker v. ta. 889 P.2d provisions, Ex er Post-Facto Clause (Okl.Cr.), State, 1002, P.2d 1005 cert. 826 recently We Oklahoma Constitution. denied, 898, 113 U.S. S.Ct. rejected argument considered this same procedural These bars L.Ed.2d (Okl.Cr. State, Hatch v. raised under amended apply still claims (Okl.Cr. 1996); Walker 933 P.2d 327 However, 1089. under the amended Section 1997). proposition Petitioner’s first error 1089(C)(1), statute, is denied. capital those II, Proposition alleges At have been raised on direct jury engaged who consisted of individuals escape being appeal will waived or barred misconduct, prejudices and O.S.Supp.1995, harbored judicata. 22 res 1089(C)(1). jurors, not to qualified resulting sit as all in a § process rights deny and violation of due narrowly specifically and de- The statute support allega him a fair of the trial. claim post-conviction fines a which could not jury prejudiced, tion that the was (1) appeal have either been raised on as his applications attaches to numerous affida appellate of trial or ineffective assistance signed vits three different individuals statutory counsel claim that meets defini- (whose connection with ease is unclear as ap- assistance of direct or of ineffective affiant) none of the affidavits identifies counsel3; (2) legal pellate or where basis concerning conversations had with Petition collaterally claim of the asserted jurors. properly er’s This claim not trial is (a) could recognized by was not not it is a that before this Court as could reasonably formulated from a have been appeal direct have been raised the United States Su- final decision of 1089(C)(1). O.S.Supp.1995, § 22 but not. Court, preme appeals a court prereq Proposition II does not meet the first States, juris- court of United or a and is there uisite to Post-Conviction review (b) ... or a new rale diction of this state is fore claim is deemed denied. Petitioner’s given that retro- constitutional law waived. Supreme active effect the United States appellate jurisdiction Court or court of III, Proposition At Petitioner asserts this state.... newly on claim of factual innocence based argu- in this (b). Contained 1089(D)(9)(a) discovered evidence. O.S.Supp.1995, § As- & ment is the claim that the evidence was proce- not suming a claim is only prior filing 2 weeks to Peti- discovered durally barred falls within one of the application. Peti- tioner’s Post-Conviction categories, Petitioner’s above referenced alleges could not have tioner the evidence afforded collateral review claims will be criteria, any earlier, if it if, been but meeting initial discovered addition have, “prior counsel’s” fault and there- they that it was support conclusion either assistance fore rises to level of ineffective outcome of the trial would have been differ- requiring He next of trial counsel relief. for the or that the Petitioner ent but errors although factually O.S.Supp.1995, the evidence could is concedes innocent. 1089(C)(2). prior Recognizing legislature’s § discovered to trial even have been it legal princi- prior appeal, Petitioner’s direct was not preserve honor intent to 1089(D)(4)(b)(l) O.S.Supp.1995, § & 3. 22 presented request

previously gang expert; due to trial heard failure allow testify; assistance. We will ad- counsel’s ineffective Petitioner to elicit failure to excul- witness; patory dress various claims ineffec- evidence from a and failure collectively, of trial tive assistance counsel testimony to elicit regarding the order of including issue. gunshots. However, respect with the claim “Under strict terms the new presented newly one discovered evi statute, an ineffective assistance of trial dence, explain why still does not counsel claim could not have been raised on pursuant this claim not waived is appeal requires it ‘factfinding if out 1089(C)(1). Merely § stating O.S.Supp.1995, ” Walker, appeal side the direct record’ that evidence could not this Court construing P.2d at 332 been is insufficient to meet discovered 1089(D)(4)(b)(l). § Ineffective assistance of requirement trial properly counsel claims are raised and in the applicant [t]he shall state may only considered if specific explaining as to each claim facts they upon are based facts which were not why it not or could not have been appeal available to Petitioner’s direct attor appeal sup- raised in a direct and how it ney and therefore could not have been made ports a ... the defendant conclusion part Walker, appeal of the direct record. factually is innocent. requiring 933 P.2d at 331-33 Items fact- 1089(C) (emphasis 22 O.S.Supp.1995, add finding appeal the direct outside record do ed). assuming Even the affidavit submitted ability include items trial counsel had the true, does contain prohibited discover. Id. This Court is specific supporting the conclusion that facts considering from Petitioner’s ineffective as factually Conflicting Petitioner is innocent. if sistance of trial counsel facts presented evidence could have been supporting those claims were available to (of case) trial there much in this was counsel, appeal Petitioner’s direct and either simply “specific does not rise to the level of were or have in could been used his direct that supporting facts conclusion Petitioner appeal. Id. Moore, factually

is innocent”. See P.2d (a granted at 1258 trial will not new where Petitioner, brief, in his admits he merely tends to discredit or evidence raised the issue of trial counsel’s failure to impeach probability without some witness object, but claims the issue not have changed); that the trial result will be Smith developed fully been on appeal direct because 615, 617-18, denied, cert. being presented information now was “ 113 S.Ct. 121 L.Ed.2d 331 ‘off appeal.” the record’ for direct Petition (1992) (post-trial evidentiary hearing cast er’s claim is he did that not realize the effect testimony of doubt on truth witness’s but gang jury’s his affiliation had on the determi impeach evidence would discredit or wit guilt Only nation of upon his innocence. ness). Proposition III not meet does the matíng determination, by such a interview post-conviction first to prerequisite review ing jurors, was he able to that determine procedur and is Petitioner’s claim is denied. object trial counsel’s failure to such to refer ally barred. ences constituted ineffective assistance. De IV, alleges spite At Proposition juror Petitioner alleged he his claim that the inter deprived of part original was effective assistance of both views of were not direct record, appeal trial We will appellate appears and counsel. ad- it that the facts con separately. dress these claims tained in to them were available his direct appeal attorney claims trial counsel was ineffective as fol- and thus could have been object presented lows: questions appeal. failure to concern- on direct There is no affiliation, ing gang suggest jurors failure to evidence to Petitioner’s who were Finley post-conviction cross-examine witness about her bias interviewed for Petitioner’s testifying; failing request appeal unwilling pro motive for were or unavailable to eyewitness expert; an identification vide failure these same interviews at time of such, trial Petitioner next claims counsel appeal. As there is direct allowing testify him was ineffective in not indicating required claim fact- nothing this record, presented no at trial. There is evidence claim is finding of and the outside unavailable, indicating unwill Petitioner was properly post-conviction in this not raised appeal provide or unable to direct counsel and with this information we will not enter admits that sec post-conviction. Petitioner also tain this claim on cross-examine, claim, failure ond alleges trial Petitioner then counsel appeal, but it too was not raised on direct exculpatory to elicit evidence from wit failed fully developed at been and could preliminary nesses who testified both question around time. The here centers trial, testimony hearing and elicit at the testimony of a witness who testified concerning the order of the from witnesses Airhart, hearing of Mikael who preliminary amounting gunshots, both to ineffective assis accessory murder in charged as an trial counsel. Inasmuch as the claim tance of claims wit relation to this case. Petitioner preliminary hearing is this contained Finley potential suspect ness evidence, alleged exculpatory and evidence of (as accessory), providing her same ease gunshots, alleged order of testimony. her Once with motive alter present was not cannot now the error admissions again, and Petitioner’s own required fact- appeal ed on direct because brief, trial was aware contained counsel finding outside This claim is of record. hearing testimony preliminary properly presented post-conviction during parts of it Petitioner’s trial. fact used and will not it. we review indicating nothing is this claim inef There claims of ineffective on facts which None fective assistance is based properly ap assistance trial counsel were not available to Petitioner’s appeal in this we attorney. properly raised peal This claim is not proposi- This and will not consider them here. application, raised of error denied.4 we will not consider it. Finally, Petitioner claims that ineffective pres The next two him to assistance counsel entitles allege due trial ents ineffective assistance argues He that while it was error relief. expert failure to secure an wit counsel’s testimony fail to trial counsel to elicit eyewitness areas identifica

nesses in the gun exculpatory and the order of evidence gangs. again, no facts are tion Once compounded by appellate error shots the was indicating were un present such witnesses present on di the error counsel’s failure unwilling provide affidavits available or Finally appeal. rect he claims was error supporting argument at time of Peti this the raise Daws appellate for to fail to a counsel appeal, or that information tioner’s direct appeal. ow5 claim on direct kept was from concerning experts these has the burden of estab This claim is not appeal direct counsel. alleged have lishing that claim could not this for review. properly before Court 159, Delaware, Moreover, S.Ct. 5. v. 503 U.S. 112 ineffective as Dawson Petitioner’s of 4. sistance, (1992). 1093, alleges provisions the 22 if not barred of 117 L.Ed.2d 309 1089(D)(4)(b)(l), pro § also are First Dawson the the Court determined judicata cedurally argument that the same' barred res prohibit the intro- and Fourteenth Amendments presented in Petitioner's direct was sentencing proceeding the capital a of duction in State, 1120, appeal. v. 902 P.2d 1122 n. 9 Hooks an was a member of fact that defendant - -, denied, (Okl.Cr.1995), 116 cert U.S. Brotherhood, Aryan organization called (1996); 1440, S.Ct. 134 L.Ed.2d 561 Moore v. no to the issue the evidence has relevance where State, 1253, (Okl.Cr.), n. cert 889 P.2d 1258 14 proceeding. being decided in the denied, - U.S. -, 215, L.Ed.2d 116 S.Ct. 133 1993, 21, January appeal was filed direct obviously on State, 751, (1995); 146 Green v. 881 P.2d after the Dawson case sometime State, 1078, 754(Okl.Cr.l994); Berget v. 907 P.2d decided. - (Okl.Cr.1995), denied, -, U.S. 1081 cert 2505, (1996). 116 S.Ct. 135 L.Ed.2d 195 108 proce- previously attorney precondi- thus performance

been raised and is not ficient so, durally To do claim having barred. underlying tion their substantive Walker, must be claim at reviewed. 933 P.2d 333-35. original timely prior evaluation, contained in Unlike relat- petitioners argued for relief wherein barred claims and appellate to ineffective assistance of assistance”, then labeled them “ineffective Appeals of Criminal counsel and the Court the narrow issue now considered allegations that if the ineffec- [of first finds evaluating Court such barred claims is true, performance of tiveness] appellate performance whether counsel’s appellate counsel constitutes the denial prevailing professional deficient under reasonably competent appel- assistance of norms. Id. We need not examine the mer- prevailing professional late counsel under allegedly its of barred claim which was norms. mishandled to make this determination. Walker, added). (emphasis 933 P.2d at 333. While the forth in standards set In the event this Court determines that the applied Strickland can to appellate be coun allegation appellate counsel ineffective performance, they sel’s were established to merit, may alleged- we has then consider the assess the effectiveness of trial counsel. ly during post-eonvic- mishandled claim Strickland, 688, at S.Ct. at 104 or, proceeding during if appropriate, 2064-65; Walker, 933 P.2d at 334 n.29. point, Id. At this standards, appel addition to the Strickland will the claim have established that duty late counsel owes his client raise previously have been raised will consider, relevant issues for this Court to but prerequisite capital post- met the first required he or she is not all to raise non- 1089(C)(1). conviction review under Walk- frivolous issues available for consideration. er, at 933 P.2d 333-35. Walker, 333-35; P.2d at Hooks guidelines, Pursuant to these 1120, (Okl.Cr.1995), P.2d 1123-24 cert inquiry appellate initial is whether counsel — denied, -, U.S. 116 S.Ct. actually gave which committed the act rise to L.Ed.2d 561 Having claim. es ineffective assistance appellate Our assessment coun this, question tablished the next is whether performance sel’s will focus whether coun performance such was deficient under the sel’s assistance considering was reasonable prong two-pronged first Strickland6 Strickland, all circumstances. point, test. apply At this we do not at U.S. at S.Ct. 2065. We are prejudice portion of It Peti Strickland. cognizant given that in any the fact ease tioner’s burden set forth sufficient facts ways provide there are numerous fully and law allow effective this Court assess Likewise, we allegedly perfor counsel’s deficient assistance. realize effec Walker, Upon mance. performance 333-35. tive of trial should counsel burden, meeting prove sufficient to defi light evaluated not in what was attorney performance, may cient this Court possibility particular appealing realm present then consider substantive case, conduct, but instead whether counsel’s point, ed for question review. At that represented at time appellant, he fell then becomes a claim meets whether such range profes within the wide of reasonable prerequisite capital post-con second to sional assistance. Id. Reasonable assistance review, namely sup viction that the claim not mean performance does that counsel’s ports a conclusion that either the outcome of that must flawless or counsel will be the trial would have been different for but Robinson, by judged hindsight. ineffective error(s) factually or that the defendant is P.2d at 404. not We also will hold 1089(C)(2). O.S.Supp.1995, § innocent. 22 appellate performance counsel’s to be defi statute, capi- pursue particular Under the terms for of this new cient failure to avenue post-conviction petitioners tal prove must de- on if appeal given the client has counsel 2059, 2052, Washington, Strickland v. 6. 466 U.S. 677- S.Ct. L.Ed.2d his that of would have resulted reversal of convic- pursing avenue to believe that reason tion, proof his a new fruitless harmful. of innocence or trial. investigation would be Strickland, 691, 104 2066. S.Ct. at that appellate There is no evidence counsel issues, to Petitioner’s apply analysis not now did research the that she did not We of appellate assistance of ineffective preliminary hearing claims or trial tran- read the counsel. scripts, she not talk that did to witnesses question, that not know even she did appellate coun- claims that Petitioner first just plausi- It as the issue was available. is inef- issues of to raise meritorious sel failed appellate for this Court to conclude that ble counsel, specifically trial of fective assistance arguments espoused counsel considered the cross- failed to examine and that trial counsel rejected inap- here Petitioner and them as trial witnesses from he examine it is to propriate or frivolous as for Petitioner exculpatory and evi- evidence extracted argument now claim that failure to raise the bias have shown witness dence which would is, se, is per ineffective assistance. There In these claims were against Petitioner. fact nothing showing this Court that omission of presented appeal on direct Petitioner not appeal these claims on direct was unreason- proving of that has the burden met did fall able under the circumstances or question is The next conduct occurred. range professional within the wide assis- counsel’s omission these whether has not tance. Petitioner established assistance. constitutes ineffective simply for appellate counsel was ineffective per- characterizing appellate In counsel’s failing to raise these issues on direct ineffective, argues as Petitioner formance Therefore, underlying the substantive claims only attorney fails raise that an who to ap- these claims of ineffective assistance obviously claim is ineffective meritorious procedurally pellate counsel remain barred identify to appellate counsel’s failure them on the and we will not address merits. specified testimony as crucial Proposition IV is denied. Relief based proof of ineffective assistance. defense argument “Ineffec- his next Petitioner labels conjunction for with guilt appellate tive assistance relief, requests an Petitioner counsel — here counsel was He claims association”. post-convic- time amend his extension of failing to what labels for raise he ineffective discovery evidentiary application, and an ” issue, any “Dawson alleging reference hearing. request for extension of time The gang is er- affiliation reversible request discovery, for is linked to Petitioner’s exists, alleges, he ror. the issue Because claiming given so must be time amend he it, appellate counsel failed to raise because can those he finds conduct- he add issues appellate counsel was ineffective. such, ing discovery. As we will address the request discovery first. for claiming After counsel failing to what simply for raise ineffective cites meritorious, espouses now to be 1089(D)(3) authority authorizing for claims, proceeds to re appealable “any discovery is- relevant gale this Court with substantive issues recog- encourages this sues.” He Court ac previously presented, along with their longer question our no nize that we need authorities. Pe companying arguments and discovery provide post-conviction authority to conelusory allegation titioner’s discovery “has made legislature because the support argument counsel post-conviction pro- part integral allegation ineffec We find ineffective. “vigor- encouraged to are further cess”. We solely by tive failure assistance evidenced as a ously implement” Petitioner sees what argument simply is present an discovery. While re- “new entitlement” this to find coun enough for Court discovery from this questing general a order sel was ineffective. Court, specific items Petitioner outlines through pro- this hopes to discover which he provided indicat- is no information There cess, grant those asks this Court and of appellate counsel was unaware general his requests in the event specific arguments which Petitioner now denied, claiming ability request request is his to raise for of is tioner’s extension time de- potential post-conviction dependent claims is nied. upon ability his to discover various docu- carefully reviewing ap- After Petitioner’s hopes posses- in the

ments he find relief, plications post-conviction discovery, for other police sion of the various State evidentiary hearing request an and for exten- agencies. (1) time, of sion we conclude exist there previously no controverted unresolved factual discovery request for

Petitioner’s legality to the of issues material Petitioner’s post-conviction is statute denied. The new (2) confinement, that Petitioner could have grant does “new Petitioner entitlements” previously collaterally raised his asserted discovery. Compulsory discovery is not review, (3) grounds for and that the current required post-conviction in proceedings. See Post-Conviction Hooks, statutes warrant no relief. 902 P.2d at 1125. Petitioner does not 1089(D)(4)(a). § O.S.Supp.1995, Accord- explain why requested in to this Court ingly, Application Petitioner’s for Post-Con- necessary post-con is formation to facilitate Relief, Request viction for of Indeed, Extension viction review of his claim. Time, Application Discovery Request questions no its authority Court has about Evidentiary Hearing for an are DENIED. discovery appropriate. order where Accord ingly application is denied. P.J., CHAPEL, STRUBHAR, V.P.J., requests also an eviden- concur.

tiary hearing. post-eonvic capital The new specifically tion statute does not mo address JOHNSON, JJ., LUMPKIN concur However, evidentiary hearings. tions for results. statute, pursuant to the it is this Court’s LUMPKIN, Judge, concurring in results. responsibility propositions to assess controverted, raised and determine whether agree I that Petitioner’s should convictions previously unresolved factual issues material separately though be affirmed. I write legality applicant’s to the of the confinement First, concur, points. address two I based 1089(D)(3). § exist. 22 If decisis, dealing on stare in the discussion exists, controversy such a Court free is with ineffective assistance counsel. See order, requested an issue such as the one 327, 330-31, Walker 933 P.2d 341-44 Petitioner, to facilitate re (OH.Cr.1997). Secondly, I also want to ad- Walker, view. at 339-41. implication Proposition dress the II that juror Petitioner’s claim misconduct is an reviewing claims, In we issue we would have if on addressed raised any do not find material issues fact which evidentiary would hearing. warrant an Peti solely tioner’s motion on is based the claims misconduct, support jury his claim of presented in propositions of error and affidavits, presents numerous present any does not for this Court evidence which are within the viewed limited context hearing a such would post- facilitate 9.7(D), concerning of Rule conversations with conviction review his case. Petitioner’s jurors. Petitioner’s trial This has Court evidentiary hearing motion for an is there general since statehood adhered to the rule fore denied. impeach jury’s defendant cannot Finally, (evidence) requests finding testimony an extension with of what Indeed, time in jury which he would be allowed to transpired amend in the room. any Supreme to include Court United States has issues filing very subject. spoken discovered after his time has In Mc- same expired. Pless, This we refuse to do. Pursuant Donald v. U.S. S.Ct. 1089(D)(2), 22 O.S.Supp.1995, (1915), no applica- explained 59 L.Ed. 1300 Court may specified why impeachment jury’s amended after time of a verdict after the statute. panel improp- Such amendment will be the fact member subsequent application. considered Peti- er:

HI be, be, many would could verdicts [A]ll SMALLWOOD, hope inquiry in the of dis- by an Dion Athanasius

followed Petitioner, might invalidate something which covering harassed and finding. would be Jurors v. party in an effort to defeated beset Oklahoma, Respondent. The STATE of facts which them evidence of from secure to set misconduct sufficient might establish No. PC-96-1513. If evidence thus secured a verdict. aside used, be to the result would Appeals be thus of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal private to be a was intended make what 15, April 1997. deliberation, subject public the constant all the destruction of investigation —to of discussion and and freedom

frankness

conference. 267-68, at 784. See also 35 S.Ct.

Id. at States, 107, 121- v. United

Tanner 2739, 2748-49,

22, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 107 S.Ct.

(1987). has adhered to the same This Court State, 264, 762 P.2d 266-

philosophy. Hall v. State, 173, (Okl.Cr.1988); P.2d Lee v. 738

67 State, (Okl.Cr.1987); Weatherly v.

176-77 (Okl.Cr.1987); 1331, DeRonde 1335

733 P.2d (Okl.Cr.1986); State, 84, 86-87 715 P.2d

v. (Okl. State, 568, 572-73 v.

Wacoche State, 1362,

Cr.1982); 617 P.2d West v. State,

(Okl.Cr.1980); Killough v. 94 Okl.Cr. 381, (1951);

131, 135-36, 387-88 Ex 231 P.2d Lewis, 334, 336, 223 P.2d

parte 92 Okl.Cr. State, (1950);

143, Martin v. 92 Okl.Cr. (1950); 534,

182, 218, 222 P.2d Williams 70, 78-80, 836, State, 220 P.2d 92 Okl.Cr. (1950); Harrell v. 85 Okl.Cr.

841-42 676, And lest 187 P.2d impeachment prohibit is also forget, such

we 2606(B). O.S.1991,§ by statute.

ed appears to be a

I this because mention among capital post-con-

recurring argument hoped It is that men- petitioners.

viction here, to the

tioning petitioners will adhere Court, and the holdings

established Court, together with Supreme

United States imperatives. statutory

enacted

Case Details

Case Name: Robinson v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Apr 14, 1997

Citation: 937 P.2d 101

Docket Number: PC-96-1224

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.