Opinion ID: 168528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cumulative error at the sentencing stage

Text: 148 Finally, Mr. Short maintains that the aggregate impact of the guilt and sentencing stage errors warrants reversal of his convictions or at least a remand for resentencing. The OCCA rejected this claim because it determined that any errors were harmless, even in the aggregate. Short, 980 P.2d at 1109 (While certain errors did occur in this case, even considered together, they were not so egregious or numerous as to have denied [Mr. Short] a fair trial.). Mr. Short asserts that the error in excluding testimony from Mr. Bayless prejudiced him both at the guilt and sentencing stages. He also argues that the errors arising from the admission of certain victim impact evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing establish a reasonable probability that, absent these errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. 149 A cumulative-error analysis aggregates all errors found to be harmless and analyzes whether their cumulative effect on the outcome of the trial is such that collectively they can no longer be determined to be harmless. United States v. Toles, 297 F.3d 959, 972 (10th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have found no additional constitutional errors, and thus we only review the OCCA's decision under our deferential AEDPA standard. See Cargle, 317 F.3d at 1206. Given this level of deference, we cannot determine that the OCCA's evaluation of the cumulative impact of the trial court errors was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.