repeatedly invoking principle contrasted with Strickland here
How later courts described this case
- repeatedly invoking principle contrasted with Strickland here
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAPEL, Presiding Judge, specially
concurring:
I agree Cargle’s application for post-conviction relief should be denied. In analyzing Cargle’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the majority states Cargle fails to show any “external impediment” to the issues in addition to properly analyzing Cargle’s claims under Walker v. State. 1 Failure to raise an “external impediment” is not part of the test for post-conviction relief under the revised capital post-conviction statutes, and this Court has refused to approve that additional requirement. 2 I also note the opinion’s misleading language regarding presumptions governing motions for discovery under Rule 9.7. 3 Rule 9.7 requires affidavits to rebut the presumption of regularity at trial. However, the Rule itself does not contain any presumption that prosecutors will adhere to their duty as officers of the court and turn over exculpatory evidence. I believe the opinion intends to cite Rule 9.7 for the former presumption but not the latter.
. Walker v. State, 933 P.2d 327 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2524 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1997)
. Braun v. State, 937 P.2d 505, 516 (Okl.Cr.1997) (Chapel, P.J., concurring in result).
. Rule 9.7(D)(3), 22 O.S.Supp.1996, Ch.18, App., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.