# Salazar v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · December 30, 1998 · 70 O.B.A.J. 165

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568276

## Case

- **Full name:** Maximo Lee SALAZAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 30, 1998
- **Citations:** 70 O.B.A.J. 165; 973 P.2d 315; 1998 OK CR 70; 1998 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 72; 1998 WL 917039
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Johnson, Chapel, Strubhar, Lumpkin, Lane
- **Cited by:** 18 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/9568276

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that despite Crawford, Perry, and Cheney, "[t]he Court's analysis and application of Poland in Salazar . . . represents this Court's current position on this issue"
- noting that despite Crawford, Perry, and Cheney, "[t]he Court’s analysis and application of Poland in Salazar ... represents this Court's current position on this issue”

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Judge,
specially concur.
¶ 1 I join in the Court’s decision in this case and write to make a comment on two issues.
¶ 2 First, as to Proposition of Error XIV, the State in its brief correctly notes “that Defendant has failed in his argument to provide citations to caselaw of this Court or the United States Supreme Court in support of his contention that the execution of a retarded person is a per se violation of Oklahoma or federal law.” (State’s brief at 60-61). Rule 3.5(C)(5), Rules of The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (1998), provides “Failure to present relevant authority in compliance with these requirements will result in the issue being forfeited on appeal (citations omitted)”. It should also be noted the record reveals the issue of whether or not Appellant is retarded is a disputed fact. It appears an evaluation in 1988 indicated Appellant has an I.Q. of 82, was of low but normal intelligence, and had no indication of neurological brain damage. (State’s brief at Pg. 61). Appellant argues *330 he was functioning at a retarded level of intelligence at the time of the offense. (Appellant’s brief at Pg. 93) (Appellant’s reply brief at Pg. 15). The verdict of the jury is supported by the evidence in this case.
113 In addition, it should be noted the criteria set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for evaluating effectiveness of counsel has been further explained in Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). Applying the Lockhart standard, the record is void of any evidence the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect or unreliable.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568276. Public record. Not legal advice.