Court cannot reach alleged trial errors on post-conviction if errors were not raised in post-conviction claims
How later courts described this case
- Court cannot reach alleged trial errors on post-conviction if errors were not raised in post-conviction claims
- “W e will not treat the post-conviction process as a second appeal, 1 W e note that the cumulative-error claim raised in M r. Santoyo’s application for post-conviction relief relied upon some alleged trial court errors that he did not present on direct appeal. -2- and will apply the doctrines of res judicata and waiver where a claim either was, or could have been, raised in the petitioner’s direct appeal.”
- “We will not treat the post-conviction process as a second appeal, and will apply the doctrines of res judicata and waiver where a claim either was, or could have been, raised in the petitioner’s direct appeal.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMPKIN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:
CONCUR IN RESULTS.
¶ 1 I concur in the results reached and agree the Application for Post-Conviction Relief should be denied. However, as I have noted before, I cannot agree with the cavalier way this Court tosses around the concept of “de novo review” as a shield to unbridled appellate decision-making.
*159 ¶ 2 Pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2004, § 1089(D)(4), this Court’s authority on review of post-eonviction applications is limited. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are broken down into two categories: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel “involving a factual basis that was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before the time of direct appeal”; and (2) “a claim contained in an original timely application for post-conviction relief relating to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel”. If this Court determines that previously unresolved factual issues do not exist or the claims were or could have been previously raised, then it is required under the statute to enter an order denying the claim and provide findings of fact and conclusions of law to that effect. If the Court determines there are unresolved issues of fact then the case must be remanded to the district court to resolve those factual questions.
¶ 3 One of the hardest traits for appellate courts to exercise is the self-discipline to function within the parameters of the law that limit our scope of authority. This Court should not and cannot adjudicate disputed facts “de novo ”, that is not within our historical scope of authority. While we must ensure the law is applied in a correct manner, we are constrained in our duty by the determination of the trier of facts as to any disputed facts in the case. For these reasons, I believe appellate courts must be vigilant in them application of the rules that ensure the objective and consistent enforcement of our laws, and reticent in merely trying to second guess a trier of fact.