Opinion ID: 170999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application for Postconviction Relief

Text: On December 11, 1998, Mr. DeLozier filed an application for postconviction relief with the OCCA. Pertinent to this appeal, he argued that Perrine had been ineffective in failing to present evidence of Mr. DeLozier's drug addiction and drug-induced impairment as mitigating factors in the penalty phase of his trial. In support of the application Mr. DeLozier submitted a report of a psychological examination by Dr. Jeri Fritz, a licensed clinical psychologist. The report said that use of methamphetamine, a central-nervous-system stimulant, could cause irritability, insomnia, memory loss, confusion, anxiety, aggression, as well as serious physical problems including cardiac and brain damage. R. Vol. 19, Ex. 13 at 11. Prolonged use of methamphetamine, it continued, can create symptoms that resemble psychiatric diagnoses and are characterized by hallucinations, repetitive behaviors, and paranoia, which can produce suicidal or homicidal thoughts. Id. Although earlier tests of Mr. DeLozier had not revealed any gross neuropsychological impairment, id. at 8, [t]he effect of the combination of a prolonged methamphetamine binge mixed with central nervous system depressants would most[ ] likely have meant that Mr. DeLozier would have been in the highly dangerous tweaking stage while at the Tate camp. He may have most likely been irritable, confused, hyperaroused, agitated, and paranoid. His behavior would probably have been unpredictable with a high potential for unprovoked violence, id. at 12. Mr. DeLozier contended that Perrine should have investigated and developed such mitigating evidence. In addition, Mr. DeLozier claimed that Perrine had been ineffective for waiting until after the guilty verdict to interview members of Mr. DeLozier's family for potentially mitigating evidence. And appellate counsel had been ineffective, according to Mr. DeLozier, because she had failed to claim that Perrine had been ineffective for not presenting mitigating evidence. The OCCA rejected Mr. DeLozier's claims. His claims with respect to Perrine were procedurally barred, it said, because he had not raised them on direct appeal and his claims did not turn on facts or information unavailable at the time of his direct appeal. DeLozier v. State, No. PC 98-517, slip op. at 6 (Okla.Crim.App. April 28, 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (R. Vol. 14, located between Docs. 64 and 65). Regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the court applied the test set forth in Walker v. State, 933 P.2d 327 (Okla.Crim.App.1997), overruling recognized by Harris v. State, 167 P.3d 438 (Okla.Crim.App.2007), and denied the claim because [h]e ha[d] not shown appellate counsel breached any duties owed to him, or that appellate counsel's judgment was unreasonable under the circumstances or did not fall within the wide range of professional assistance. DeLozier, No. PC 98-517, slip op. at 7-8 (internal quotation marks omitted).