Webb v. State

Citation835 P.2d 115
Decision Date11 June 1992
Docket NumberNo. PC,PC
PartiesMichael Dean WEBB, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent. 92-0245.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Petitioner has appealed to this Court from an order of the District Court of Pottawatomie County, denying his second application for post-conviction relief in Case No. CRF-77-92. Petitioner, represented at trial by Irwin Owen, was convicted by a jury of First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of a Felony, and was sentenced October 12, 1977, to life imprisonment.

Petitioner, represented by Irwin Owen and H. Jeffrey Diamond of Miller, Peters and Diamond, timely appealed his conviction. On appeal, Petitioner raised three propositions of error: (1) that he was sentenced pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp.1977, § 51(B), which was declared unconstitutional; (2) admitting a foreign judgment and sentence into evidence without an authenticating witness; and, (3) admitting such instrument when it did not affirmatively reflect that the Petitioner had been represented by counsel or had effectively waived this right. This Court found no error and affirmed Petitioner's conviction in an unpublished opinion, Case No. F-78-78, April 30, 1979.

Petitioner, represented by Bob G. Carpenter, Attorney, filed an application for post-conviction relief in the District Court on December 15, 1988, raising one proposition of error. Petitioner alleged prosecutorial misconduct denied him the right to a fair and impartial trial because the prosecuting attorney dismissed one prior felony conviction at the beginning of stage two resulting in severe prejudice to Petitioner. The District Court denied Petitioner post-conviction relief January 23, 1989, finding this proposition of error could have been raised on appeal and that the dismissal of the prior felony conviction at trial could have been to the Petitioner's benefit and, therefore, was not sufficient to warrant relief. Petitioner, pro se, timely appealed the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. In an order entered March 2, 1989, this Court affirmed the District Court's order denying Petitioner's first application for post-conviction relief.

Petitioner, represented by Clifford E. Briery, II, has now appealed the denial of Petitioner's second application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner raises three propositions of error: (1) the State failed to prove Petitioner committed the crime of rape as defined by law; (2) Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal and on his first application for post-conviction relief because neither attorney addressed Petitioner's first proposition of error; and (3) Petitioner's sentence should not have been enhanced because the State failed to prove he was a prior felon.

The District Court denied Petitioner's second application finding no issues raised in the second application which should not have been known at the time of the first attempt to obtain post-conviction relief or at the time of the appeal; and, in accordance with Johnson v. State, 823 P.2d 370 (Okl.Cr.1991), and 22 O.S.1991, § 1086, Petitioner is barred from raising these claims.

This Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction in his direct appeal; therefore all issues previously ruled upon by this Court are res judicata, and all issues not raised in the direct appeal, which could have been raised, are waived. Moreover, Section 1086 directs that all grounds for relief available to an applicant under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act must be raised in the original application and that any ground not so raised, or bypassed, may not be the basis for a subsequent application unless sufficient reason is given for not asserting or inadequately raising the issue in the prior application or in any other proceeding taken to secure relief.

We find Petitioner's first and third propositions are barred and will not be considered. We also find that Petitioner's second proposition, ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal and in his first post-conviction application, fails to set forth sufficient reason for relief.

Counse...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Clayton v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • January 10, 1995
    ...this Court has consistently rejected 20 render counsel ineffective. See Mann v. State, 856 P.2d 992, 994 (Okl.Cr.1993); Webb v. State, 835 P.2d 115, 117 (Okl.Cr.1992). In his sixteenth proposition Petitioner argues errors occurring at trial, on direct appeal and on post conviction review in......
  • Taylor v. Trammell
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Northern District of Oklahoma
    • February 21, 2014
    ...but was not, is waived, and may not be the basis of a subsequent post-conviction application." (Dkt. # 5-8 at 1 (citing Webb v. State, 835 P.2d 115 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991); OKLA. STAT. tit. 22, § 1086). The state court's procedural bar, as applied to Petitioner's claims, was an "independent......
  • Gray v. Whitten
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Eastern District of Oklahoma
    • February 21, 2020
    ...further review. See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1086 (2001); King v. State, 29 P.3d 1089, 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001); Webb v. State, 835 P.2d 115, 116, (Okla. Crim. App. 1992), overruled on other grounds, Neill v. State, 943 P.2d 145, 148 n.2 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). Post-conviction review was......
  • Roberts v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • January 26, 1996
    ...and on direct appeal. Accordingly, his claim of ineffective trial counsel is not waived, and will be considered. See Webb v. State, 835 P.2d 115, 117 (Okl.Cr.1992); see also Fowler v. State, 896 P.2d 566, 569 We have examined each of Petitioner's complaints. Petitioner claims counsel was in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT