# Reed v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · January 25, 1983 · 657 P.2d 662

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541317

## Case

- **Full name:** Karen L. REED, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 25, 1983
- **Citations:** 657 P.2d 662; 1983 OK CR 12; 1983 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 188
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Brett, Bussey, Cornish
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541317

## Opinion text

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
The appellant was convicted of eight counts of Robbery With Firearms, Case No. CFR-80-361, in the District Court of Oklahoma, and sentenced to consecutive sentences totaling 471 years’ imprisonment. Her conviction was affirmed on appeal by published opinion. Reed v. State, 657 P.2d 662 (Okl.Cr.1983). On rehearing, filed February 17, 1983, the appellant raises two questions; first, ineffective appellate counsel; and second, a denial of due process and equal protection in this Court’s refusal to order the eight sentences to be served concurrently.
On direct appeal, the appellant claimed that nondisclosure of a plea bargain between the State and one of her co-defendants in exchange for his testimony was unconstitutional. She attached affidavits to her brief in support of this argument and cited Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); and Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 , 55 S.Ct. 340 , 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935). This Court found that the affidavits were not sufficient to support the allegation and that there should have been a hearing, at the trial court level, to resolve the issue before raising it on appeal. However, at the time of appeal, the time for *666 said hearing, which would have been based on a motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence, had run. Therefore, had appellate counsel requested one it would have been denied. Furthermore, the fact that the appellate counsel did not raise this issue in a motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence dose not constitute ineffective assistance for counsel under the test of “reasonable competence,” as established in Johnson v. State, 620 P.2d 1311 (Okl.Cr.1981). That standard is applicable to counsel on appeal as well as trial counsel.
In her second proposition raised on petition for rehearing, the appellant alleges that this Court denied her equal protection and due process by refusing to order that the sentences be reimposed to run concurrently. In the published opinion of this case, 657 P.2d 662 (Okl.Cr.1983), this Court set forth the distinctive violence which sets this case apart from the cases cited.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541317. Public record. Not legal advice.