903 P.2d 333 (Okla.Crim.App. 1995), PC-95-436, Bryson v. State
| Citation | 903 P.2d 333 |
| Party Name | William Clifford BRYSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent. |
| Case Date | September 22, 1995 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Page 333
An Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Nancy L. Coats, District Judge.
Don J. Gutteridge, Kerr, Irvine, Rhodes & Ables, Oklahoma City, for Petitioner.
W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, A. Diane Blalock, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, for Respondent.
OPINION AFFIRMING DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
LUMPKIN, Judge:
Petitioner William Clifford Bryson, Jr. has appealed to this Court from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County denying his application for post-conviction relief in Case No. CRF-88-4781. Petitioner's first degree murder conviction and death sentence were affirmed by this Court in Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240 (Okl.Cr.1994). The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied a Petition for Certiorari. See Bryson v. Oklahoma, 513 U.S. 1090, 115 S.Ct. 752, 130 L.Ed.2d 651 (1995). Petitioner's subsequent Application for Post-Conviction relief was filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County on March 7, 1995 and subsequently denied
Page 334
by the court on April 5, 1995. The trial court found no issues of fact to warrant an evidentiary hearing. It is this denial which the Petitioner appeals.
Petitioner raises eight (8) allegations of error in his application. Based upon the entire record in this case, we find it unnecessary to address every allegation of error. Allegations concerning issues which were raised on direct appeal are barred from reconsideration by res judicata. Issues which could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are waived. 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); Johnson v. State, 823 P.2d 370 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 926, 112 S.Ct. 1984, 118 L.Ed.2d 582 (1992); 22 O.S.1991, § 1086. An exception to these rules exists when the court finds a ground for relief asserted which "for sufficient reason was not asserted or was raised inadequately in the prior application for post-conviction relief" or "when an intervening change in constitutional law impacts the judgment or sentence." 22 O.S.1991, § 1086; Rojem v. State, 829 P.2d 683, 684 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 958, 113 S.Ct. 420, 121 L.Ed.2d 343 (1992). Only two of Petitioner's propositions of error survive for this Court's review.
Four of Petitioner's propositions, Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7, are barred by res judicata. In Petitioner's Proposition Number 2, he contends he failed to receive effective assistance of trial counsel. Petitioner's application alleges instances of ineffective assistance which are reviewable based upon the record before this Court. We approach this issue mindful of the holding in Brecheen v. Reynolds, 41 F.3d 1343, 1363-64 (10th Cir.1994), which questions the adequacy of this Court's procedure regarding its treatment of allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal and on post-conviction review. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded the failure to raise ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal will not preclude federal review of the claim. Id. at 1364; Brewer v. Reynolds, 51 F.3d 1519, 1522 (10th Cir.1995). However, Brecheen pertains to those allegations of ineffective assistance which were not raised on direct appeal and are unsubstantiated by the appellate record, necessitating an evidentiary hearing to establish the factual basis of the matter. In the case before us, Petitioner's claims were thoroughly examined in his direct appeal and concern matters which are contained in the record before the Court. Bryson, 876 P.2d at 263-65. Consequently, an evidentiary hearing is not required to resolve the matter. The opinion on Petitioner's direct appeal thoroughly adjudicated the issues presented. As such, this issue is barred by res judicata.
Petitioner complains in Proposition Number 4 that he was unable to fully develop facts relating to his lack of competency at trial. Again, this issue was adjudicated in the direct appeal. Id. at 249-50. Proposition Number 6 attacks Oklahoma's death penalty scheme as arbitrary and capricious, an issue that was addressed in his direct appeal. Id. at 263. In Proposition Number 7, Petitioner claims the trial court's failure to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant prevented him from fully presenting mitigating evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial