# Van Woudenberg v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · June 30, 1997 · 68 O.B.A.J. 2343

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627959

## Case

- **Full name:** Samuel Raymond VAN WOUDENBERG, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 30, 1997
- **Citations:** 68 O.B.A.J. 2343; 942 P.2d 224; 1997 OK CR 38; 1997 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 40; 1997 WL 370525
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Johnson, Chapel, Strubhar, Lane, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9627959

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Judge,
concur in results.
I concur in the decision to deny post-conviction relief in this case. However, I write separately to address the following.
Initially, this application should be reviewed under the pre-1995 amendments to *229 the post-conviction statute. Further, this is a third post-conviction application, therefore we apply 22 O.S.1991, § 1086. Under Section 1086, the principles of res judicata and waiver apply respectively to issues adjudicated in prior post-conviction applications and those issues which could have been raised but were not. See Hale v. State, 934 P.2d 1100, 1101-02 (Okl.Cr.1997); Newsted v. State, 908 P.2d 1388, 1391 (OM.Cr.1995); Fowler v. State, 896 P.2d 566, 568-569 (Okl.Cr.1995); Fox v. State, 880 P.2d 383, 384 (Okl.Cr.1994); Smith v. State, 878 P.2d 375, 377 (Okl.Cr.1994); Mann v. State, 856 P.2d 992, 995 (Okl.Cr.1993); and Johnson v. State, 823 P.2d 370, 372 (Okl.Cr.1991).
The proposition raised in the present case could have been raised and addressed in both the direct appeal and the prior post-conviction application. In fact, as the opinion relates it is revealed in the transcript of the trial. Therefore, the issue has been waived. We should not address it on the merits and give any semblance of credibility to the viability of the issue. Petitioner has exhausted all his state remedies and this Court should set an execution date.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627959. Public record. Not legal advice.