Opinion ID: 2680621
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: OCCA Appeal

Text: Mr. Parker filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) on four issues: “(1) whether he received effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; (3) whether his sentence is excessive; and (4) whether cumulative error deprived him of a fair proceeding.” OCCA Op. Denying Certiorari, ROA, Vol. I at 109. First, Mr. Parker argued his lawyer violated Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) by (a) failing to prepare a defense and instead advising Mr. Parker to plead guilty even though Mr. Parker wished to go to trial and insisted he had an alibi, and (b) failing to advise him properly about the effect of pleading guilty, in particular misstating the three statutory minimum ranges. The OCCA rejected the trial preparation argument because “defense counsel researched [Mr.] Parker’s alibi, subpoenaed witnesses, and 3 attempted to get a continuance to further research [Mr.] Parker’s potential alibi.” OCCA Op. Denying Certiorari, ROA, Vol. I at 109. The OCCA rejected the failure-to-advise argument because Mr. Parker “met with his attorney multiple times about the case and spent sufficient time reviewing the plea form.” ROA, Vol. I at 109. 3 Second, the OCCA acknowledged the state trial court erred by overstating the minimum sentences for two counts, but concluded Mr. Parker’s pleas were not involuntary or unknowing because any misunderstanding did not affect the outcome. Third, Mr. Parker claimed his sentence was excessive because he received a harsher sentence than some of his more-culpable co-defendants. Mr. Parker quoted Oklahoma statutory and case law stating that when a guilty plea “shocks the conscience of the court or an injustice has been done” the OCCA “has the power to modify that sentence.” OCCA Br., ROA, Vol. I at 99-100 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §1066 and Livingston v. State, 795 P.2d 1055, 1058 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990) (addressing state law only)). The OCCA concluded Mr. Parker’s sentence was within the statutory range and “does not shock the conscience of [the] Court.” OCCA Op., ROA, Vol. I at 111. Fourth, the OCCA rejected Mr. Parker’s cumulative error claim. 3 Although the OCCA determined Mr. Parker’s counsel was not deficient, the OCCA’s opinion does not discuss defense counsel’s misstatements of the statutory minimums. Under AEDPA, we must presume the OCCA decided that issue on the merits. Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088, 1097 (2013) reh’g denied, 133 S. Ct. 1858 (2013); Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 785 (2011). Mr. Parker does not attempt to rebut this presumption. 4 The OCCA affirmed the trial court in a summary opinion on the merits and denied his petition. Mr. Parker neither petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari nor sought post-conviction relief in the state courts.