549 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2008), 06-5179, Wilson v. Sirmons

Docket Nº:06-5179, 07-7034, 07-7056.
Citation:549 F.3d 1267
Party Name:Michael Lee WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marty SIRMONS, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. Donald Wackerly II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marty Sirmons, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
Case Date:December 02, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1267

549 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2008)

Michael Lee WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Marty SIRMONS, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

Donald Wackerly II, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Marty Sirmons, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 06-5179, 07-7034, 07-7056.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

December 2, 2008

Lanita B. Henricksen, Henricksen & Henricksen Lawyers, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK, Raymond P. Moore, Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Michael Lee Wilson.

Jennifer B. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Seth S. Branham, Jennifer B. Miller, Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Appellee.

James T. Rowan, Rowan Ashbaker & Mckay PC, Oklahoma City, OK, for Donald Wackerly II.

Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TACHA, KELLY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, O'BRIEN, McCONNELL, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

These matters are before the court to set en banc review. In Wilson v. Sirmons, Case No. 06-5179, we GRANT the petition for en banc review filed by respondent Marty Sirmons. In Wackerly v. Sirmons, Case Nos. 07-7034 and 07-7056 combined, we set the matter for initial en banc hearing sua sponte.

Page 1268

Discussion

In both Wilson and Wackerly, petitioners each requested an evidentiary hearing on their ineffective assistance of counsel claims before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA). In both cases, the OCCA denied the requests for an evidentiary hearing, as well as the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Both petitioners sought habeas corpus relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (AEDPA).

Under Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b) of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, chapter 18 (1999), a defendant may request an evidentiary hearing when alleging on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce available evidence. The OCCA will grant the evidentiary hearing if the petitioner's application and supporting material show “ by clear and convincing evidence there is a strong possibility trial counsel was ineffective for failing to utilize or identify the complained-of evidence." Okla. Stat. tit. 22, ch. 18, Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b).

Some prior cases in this court have applied...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP