Opinion

Robison v. State

  • 62 O.B.A.J. 3130
  • 818 P.2d 1250
  • 1991 OK CR 111
  • 1991 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 116
  • 1991 WL 203410
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Filed
Oct 10, 1991
Status
Published
Author
Parks
On the bench
Johnson, Lane, Lumpkin, Brett, Parks
Cited by
10 cases
Authority
More cited than 5.9%

The opinion

PARKS, Judge,

specially concurring:

In disposing of the first portion of appellant’s third assignment of error, the majority holds that the issue is barred by res judicata. I agree with this conclusion. However, for the reasons stated below, I would also note that there appears to have been no conflict of interest regarding appellate counsel’s representation of appellant.

The record reveals that in 1977 appellant entered pleas of guilty, pursuant to a plea *1253 agreement, to two (2) felony charges m Stephens County District Court before then District Judge Hegel Branch, Jr. Following appellant’s conviction in the present case, Mr. Branch, as an attorney in private practice, was appointed to represent appellant on direct appeal. Branch was not aware of the prior cases at the time of his appointment, but was advised of such in a letter from appellant in mid-1981. However, appellant never filed a request for the appointment of new counsel and did not raise the issue in any previous plea for relief.

Following the evidentiary hearing in the instant action, the district court made detailed findings which set forth the above facts. The court also noted that appellant’s prior cases, over which Judge Branch presided, were not related to the present proceedings and were not referred to during appellant’s murder trial. 1 Therefore, the present case is clearly distinguishable from Worthen v. State, 715 P.2d 81 (Okl.Cr.1986), the case upon which appellant’s relies in this assignment. Accordingly, even had this issue been timely raised, I would find that it is without merit.

I also wish to reiterate my opinion that the so-called “anti-sympathy” instruction in the second stage of trial is unnecessary and confusing to the jury where mitigating evidence has been introduced. See Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 579 (Okl.Cr.1989) (Parks, P.J., concurring in part/dissenting in part). As a matter of stare decisis, however, I yield my view to that of the majority of this Court.

. The only prior conviction referred to during appellant’s murder trial was one for armed robbery in 1973. Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080, 1088 (Okl.Cr.1984).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.