Opinion ID: 812993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenge to Oklahoma Procedure

Text: This court’s recent decision in Allen rejected essentially the same challenge we face here regarding Oklahoma’s procedures for addressing a prisoner’s competency to be executed. See Allen, 2012 WL 4947821, at -. We held in Allen that the state’s use of the warden as gatekeeper for the process was permissible in light of the availability of mandamus to provide judicial oversight of the warden’s performance of that critical role. Allen was not published, but we find its reasoning persuasive. See generally United States v. Scott, 529 F.3d 1290, 1299 n.9 (10th Cir. 2008) 5 The district court noted that Mr. Ochoa had not exhausted his state mandamus remedy, but exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) to deny relief on the merits, as requested by the respondent. This merits disposition obviated any need to consider a stay of execution to permit exhaustion. -5- (noting that although unpublished decisions are not binding, they “may be relied upon for their persuasive value”). Mr. Ochoa has not offered any convincing basis for diverging from the reasoning and result in Allen. Although he initially asserted only a facial challenge to the state procedures, after the respondent pointed out the contrary holding in Allen, Mr. Ochoa asserted an as-applied challenge to Warden Trammell’s failure to initiate incompetency proceedings under § 1005 in his particular case. To prevail on such a challenge, Mr. Ochoa must demonstrate that he offered evidence sufficient to make the “substantial threshold showing of insanity” that Panetti held was a legitimate precondition to the state’s duty to offer a hearing on a prisoner’s competency to be executed. See Panetti, 551 U.S. at 949-50. As explained below in connection with Mr. Ochoa’s substantive competency claim, he clearly failed to do this. B. Substantive Claim of Incompetency to be Executed We deem it beyond reasonable debate that the district court properly rejected Mr. Ochoa’s substantive claim of incompetency to be executed. Mr. Ochoa did not offer a single expert opinion to support his claim, despite obtaining a psychological examination. While certainly some abnormal behavior by Mr. Ochoa has been noted, there has been no observation of his inability to comprehend his imminent execution, let alone any diagnosis or clinical impression of insanity or incompetency. More specifically, there has been no showing that Mr. Ochoa’s rational understanding of his impending execution, and the reason for it, has been impaired. See Panetti, -6- 551 U.S. at 956-60 (discussing relevant competency inquiry for Ford claim). The record in this case does not remotely resemble that deemed sufficient as a threshold showing in Panetti, where four experts supported the petitioner’s claim. See id. at 954-55. Even more telling, our record is substantially weaker than the record held plainly insufficient to support a Panetti/Ford claim in Allen, where the petitioner at least presented one expert opinion indicating temporary periods of insanity. Allen, 2012 WL 4947821, at . Mr. Ochoa’s request for a COA is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED. The motion for stay of execution is DENIED as moot. Mr. Ochoa is advised that any petition for panel or en banc rehearing must be filed by 2:00 pm MST today. See Fed. R. App. P. 2 (noting court may “suspend any provision” of the rules for good cause). Entered for the Court ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk -7- 12-6310 - Ochoa v. Trammell