Opinion ID: 215844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Selsor's arguments

Text: Selsor contends that the OCCA both unreasonably applied clearly established federal law and deprived [him] of due process when, in Turnbull, it constru[ed] its 1976 decision in Riggs[] to mean something no reasonable person would have understood that case to mean, overruling this purported holding, and applying the overruling retroactively to [him], thereby permitting the State to obtain a death sentence against him. Aplt. Br. at 21-22. In support, Selsor contends that  Riggs held that even if someone in [his] position were retried for murder, he faced a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Id. at 22. According to Selsor, he reasonably relied on [ Riggs ] when he pursued post-conviction relief, believing he could not again be subjected to a sentence of death. Id. Selsor argues that the OCCA's  Turnbull decision, overruling Riggs, was both unforeseeable and indefensible because  Riggs had stood unchallenged for two decades, had produced the very result the State requested in that case, had provided the basis for [his] life sentence, and had been cited only with approval by the OCCA. Id. In turn, Selsor contends that [t]he due process question . . . is whether [he] had fair warning when he collaterally attacked his unconstitutional conviction that he could be resentenced to death if he secured a new trial. Id. at 33.