Castro v. State, PC-89-571
| Decision Date | 16 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. PC-89-571,PC-89-571 |
| Citation | 814 P.2d 158 |
| Parties | John Walter CASTRO, Sr., Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
John Walter Castro, Sr., Appellant, was convicted by jury of First Degree Murder and Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon in Case No. CRF-83-130. Subsequently Appellant filed an Application for Post-Conviction Relief which was denied by the Honorable Neal Beekman, Associate District Judge, and which is the subject of this appeal. The denial of Post-Conviction Relief is AFFIRMED.
Scott W. Braden, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for petitioner.
Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., Wellon B. Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for respondent.
John Walter Castro, Sr., Petitioner, is before the Court on an application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was tried for the felony-murder of Rhonda Pappan, the manager of a fast-food restaurant in Ponca City called Hobo-T's, whom he stabbed to death in the course of robbing the restaurant. Petitioner was sentenced to death in Kay County District Court, Case No. CRF-83-130. This Court affirmed the death sentence in Castro v. State, 745 P.2d 394 (Okl.Cr.1987), and denied the petition for rehearing in Castro v. State, 749 P.2d 1146 (Okl.Cr.1988), cert. denied 485 U.S. 971, 108 S.Ct. 1248, 99 L.Ed.2d 446 (1988). Petitioner is now asking this Court to review the validity of his conviction and sentence for the third time.
The petitioner raises nine propositions of error. Four (4) of these were raised on direct appeal or petition for rehearing 1 and are therefore barred by res judicata. See Coleman v. State, 693 P.2d 4 (Okl.Cr.1984), 22 O.S. 1981, § 1086; and four (4) of the propositions could have been raised on direct appeal 2, and are therefore waived. See Smith v. State, 546 P.2d 1351 (Okl.Cr.1976), 22 O.S.1981, § 1086. Although we find that the petitioner's two arguments regarding the post-examination competency hearing are waived, we will address them, to explain why they do not raise jurisdictional issues as the petitioner argues. We will also address the petitioner's fifth proposition in which he argues this Court may not reweigh aggravating circumstances in order to affirm a death penalty after one or more of the aggravating circumstances weighed by the jury are determined to be invalid. Although the petitioner has raised this issue previously, the development of the law in this area by the United States Supreme Court in Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990) warrants our reconsideration.
The petitioner does not cite any authority to support his argument that the district court loses jurisdiction of a criminal matter when a question as to a defendant's competency to stand trial is raised. The legislature has provided that when a question as to a defendant's present competency to stand trial is raised, the criminal proceedings shall be suspended pending the determination of the competency of the defendant. 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.2(C) (emphasis added). As this Court recently explained in Kiser v. State, 782 P.2d 405 (Okl.Cr.1989), the post-examination competency hearing provides the defendant with a procedural safeguard to ensure the due process requirement that he will stand trial only if he is competent to do so. As such it is designed solely for the benefit of the defendant and it may be waived.
We reject the petitioner's argument that the district court lost jurisdiction of his case when the post-examination competency hearing was not held, and we find the petitioner waived his arguments related to the post-examination competency hearing by failing to raise them on appeal. See Jones v. State, 704 P.2d 1138 (Okl.Cr.1985); Cartwright v. State, 708 P.2d 592 (Okl.Cr.1985).
The petitioner raises for the second time the argument that the Court of Criminal Appeals may not reweigh aggravating circumstances after invalidating one of the aggravating circumstances found by the jury. This argument has been rejected squarely by the Supreme Court in Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990). The petitioner based his argument on the fact that the Supreme Court had at the time he filed his brief granted certiorari in Clemons; the decision was handed down twelve (12) days after his brief was filed. Following Clemons we reject this argument.
We affirm the district court denial of the petitioner's application for post-conviction relief.
I concur in the results reached by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paxton v. State
...I find that this aggravating circumstance should not be sustained I feel that I must follow the standards set forth in Castro v. State, 814 P.2d 158 (Okl.Cr.1991) and reweigh the remaining aggravators to determine if the jury would have sustained the sentence of death. To accomplish this ta......
-
Clayton v. State
...were raised and decided on direct appeal. 2 These issues are barred from our further consideration by res judicata. Castro v. State, 814 P.2d 158, 159 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063, 112 S.Ct. 947, 117 L.Ed.2d 116 (1992); Coleman v. State, 693 P.2d 4, 5 (Okl.Cr.1984); 22 O.S.198......
-
Wood v. State, F-95-759
...death sentence. When I discount this aggravating circumstance and reweigh the remaining aggravators as authorized by Castro v. State, 1991 OK CR 79, p 5, 814 P.2d 158, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063, 112 S.Ct. 947, 117 L.Ed.2d 116. I still conclude that beyond a reasonable doubt the jury would......
-
Castro v. State of Okl., 94-6430
...485 U.S. 971, 108 S.Ct. 1248, 99 L.Ed.2d 446 (1988), as were his two applications for state post-conviction review. See Castro v. State, 814 P.2d 158 (Okla.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063, 112 S.Ct. 947, 117 L.Ed.2d 116 (1992); Castro v. State, 871 P.2d 433 (Okla.Crim.App.1994).......