814 P.2d 158 (Okla.Crim.App. 1991), PC-89-571, Castro v. State

Docket Nº:PC-89-571.
Citation:814 P.2d 158
Party Name:John Walter CASTRO, Sr., Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.
Case Date:July 16, 1991
Court:Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 158

814 P.2d 158 (Okla.Crim.App. 1991)

John Walter CASTRO, Sr., Petitioner,

v.

The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. PC-89-571.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 16, 1991.

Page 159

An Appeal From the District Court of Kay County; Neal Beekman, Associate District Judge.

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.

OPINION

LANE, Presiding Judge:

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

Page 160

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP