Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. PC-88-846,PC-88-846 |
| Parties | Phillip Dewitt SMITH, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
An Appeal From the District Court of Muskogee County; Thomas H. Alford, Associate District Judge.
PHILLIP DeWITT SMITH, Petitioner, has appealed to this Court from an order of the District Court of Muskogee County denying his application for post-conviction relief in Case No. CRF-83-659. A direct appeal of Petitioner's conviction was filed with this Court wherein we affirmed the conviction and death sentence. See Smith v. State, 737 P.2d 1206 (Okl.Cr.1987). Petitioner then filed a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States which was denied. See Smith v. Oklahoma 484 U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed.2d 383 (1987). Petitioner's subsequent Application for Post-Conviction relief was filed in the District Court of Muskogee County in January 1988. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied post-conviction relief on September 13, 1988. It is this denial which the Petitioner appeals. AFFIRMED.
Mandy Welch, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for petitioner.
Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., Sandra D. Howard, Elizabeth J. Bradford, Wellon B. Poe, A. Diane Hammons, Diane L. Slayton, Steven S. Kerr, Asst. Attys. Gen., Oklahoma City, for respondent.
OPINION DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
Petitioner Phillip DeWitt Smith has appealed to this Court from an order of the District Court of Muskogee County denying his application for post-conviction relief in Case No. CRF-83-659. Petitioner's first degree murder conviction and death sentence were affirmed by this Court in Smith v. State, 737 P.2d 1206 (Okl.Cr.1987). The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied a Petition for Certiorari. See Smith v. Oklahoma, 484 U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed.2d 383 (1987).
In January 1988, Petitioner filed an Application for Post-Conviction relief in the district court. An evidentiary hearing was held in February of that year. The district court denied relief on September 13, 1988. It is this denial which the Petitioner appeals.
Petitioner raises nine (9) propositions of error. Several of these propositions contain numerous separate allegations of error. We have reviewed each and every claim of error and find that all of the claims except one are barred. Many of these allegations were raised on direct appeal and are therefore barred by res judicata. Castro v. State, 814 P.2d 158 (Okl.Cr.1991); Hale v. State, 807 P.2d 264 (Okl.Cr.1991); Coleman v. State, 693 P.2d 4 (Okl.Cr.1984); 22 O.S.1981, § 1086. While other allegations could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, further consideration of those claims has therefore been waived. Jones v. State, 704 P.2d 1138, 1140 (Okl.Cr.1985); Smith v. State, 546 P.2d 1351 (Okl.Cr.1976); 22 O.S.1981, § 1086.
Petitioner's first allegation, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during the sentencing stage of his trial, was raised on direct appeal and is again raised on post-conviction. Petitioner goes to great lengths to present evidence which he asserts is mitigating and which should have been presented during the second stage of trial. However, what Petitioner fails to do is support his argument with any legal authority.
An application for post-conviction relief may not be founded on any ground which was not raised or which was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived in the proceeding which resulted in the conviction or sentence unless the defendant shows sufficient reason why the ground was not asserted or why it was inadequately raised in any other proceeding. Tate v. State, 489 P.2d 501 (Okl.Cr.1971). Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1051, provides for a direct appeal and the defendant may not, thereafter, assert error in piecemeal fashion under the route of post-conviction. It is not the office of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, 22 O.S.1981, § 1080 et seq., to provide a "second appeal under the mask of post-conviction application." Ellington v. Crisp, 547 P.2d 391, 393 (Okl.Cr.1976). Therefore, only one of the multiple propositions presented is viable, as a matter of law, for review by this Court at this time.
Further, Petitioner may not obtain review of an issue raised previously by presenting it in a slightly different manner on post-conviction. Here, Petitioner has pointed out specific instances of alleged ineffectiveness different from those instances raised on direct appeal. However, by failing to assert that the issue was inadequately raised on direct appeal, he may not now have a second appeal of the issues under the "mask of post-conviction."
Other allegations of error raised on direct appeal and raised again on post-conviction include the State's use of testimony by Billy Joe Dixon concerning Petitioner's outstanding arrest warrants (raised in his third allegation of error); improper testimony by the medical examiner concerning hair found in the victim's hands (raised in his sixth allegation of error); that the instructions given during the second stage of trial precluded the jury from considering relevant mitigating evidence and thereby deprived Petitioner of his right to an individualized determination of his sentence (raised in his seventh allegation of error); and that the aggravating circumstances of "continuing threat" and "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" were applied in an unconstitutional manner (raised in Petitioner's eighth and ninth allegations of error respectively). As all of these allegations of error were raised on direct appeal and fully addressed by this Court, we will not consider them further.
Other allegations of error raised now on post-conviction were not raised on direct appeal but could have been. These include a challenge to Billy Joe Dixon's second stage testimony concerning a "shank" found underneath Petitioner's mattress (raised in his third allegation of error); and the failure of the prosecution to disclose that Victor Hickman had made prior inconsistent statements that were material to Petitioner's defense (raised in his fifth allegation of error). As these issues could have been raised on direct appeal and Petitioner has failed to explain why they were not, he has waived further review.
In his second allegation of error, Petitioner contends that insufficient evidence was presented to support a finding of guilt. Specifically, Petitioner argues that newly discovered evidence shows that Billy Joe Dixon's testimony has been so thoroughly discredited as to render it unbelievable and without Dixon's testimony, the evidence was insufficient to prove first degree murder.
Petitioner brings this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brecheen v. Reynolds, 94-7084
...v. Crisp, 547 P.2d 391, 393 (Okla.Crim.App.1976)), cert. denied. --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 280, 116 L.Ed.2d 231 (1991); accord Smith v. State, 826 P.2d 615, 616 (Okla.Crim.App.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 405, 121 L.Ed.2d 331 (1992).That court has further held that Sec. 1086 of ......
-
Cleary v. State
...relief has been expressed with slight variation as (1) whether the recantation would have changed the trial result, Smith v. State, 826 P.2d 615, 617 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 952, 113 S.Ct. 405, 121 L.Ed.2d 331 (1992); or (2) whether the recantation would have a probable effect on ......
-
Clayton v. State
...reiterate that an application for post conviction relief in a capital case is not a new trial or a second appeal. Smith v. State, 826 P.2d 615, 616 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 952, 113 S.Ct. 405, 121 L.Ed.2d 331 (1992); Banks v. State, 810 P.2d 1286, 1289 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. deni......
-
Manning v. Patton
...12, 15. He hasnot established that any alleged new evidence would have changed the jury's verdict. Smith v. State, 1992 OK CR 3, ¶ 15, 826 P.2d 615, 617-18.(Dkt. # 18-5 at 3). Respondent argues that the OCCA's ruling affirming the denial of a request for a post-conviction evidentiary hearin......