Opinion ID: 1039978
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Second OCCA Decision

Text: Howell again appealed, raising sixteen alleged errors, including that the court erred in not granting a new guilt phase trial in light of the outrageous juror misconduct during the first penalty phase, and that Howell’s counsel from the second penalty phase was constitutionally ineffective for telling the jury that Howell was already on death row at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. The OCCA affirmed in full. See Howell v. State, 967 P.2d 1221 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 834 (1999) (Howell II). On Howell’s request for a new guilt phase trial, the court noted that Howell was using the same evidence in his second appeal as he used in his first. Id. at 1224. Therefore, the 4 Court proceedings in both Oklahoma and Tennessee caused the delay. -9- OCCA concluded its prior decision to remand only for resentencing was “res judicata,” and it would not revisit the issue. Id. On Howell’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claim, the court found “it was counsel’s strategy to show that [Howell] had been a model prisoner while on death row, thereby rebutting the continuing[-]threat aggravating circumstance.” Id. at 1226. The court refused to “second guess trial strategy,” and denied the claim. Id. The OCCA also engaged in a full sentence review, as mandated by Oklahoma law. See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(C) (1991). The court found support for each of the three aggravating factors. For the first factor, the court identified nine prior convictions against Howell involving the use of threat, force, or violence, including two counts of attempted murder in the first degree and one count of murder in the first degree during the commission of a robbery. Howell II, 967 P.2d at 1229. For the second factor, the court observed that “[Howell] sought to avoid arrest or prosecution for the theft of Sgt. Calhoun’s vehicle” by removing her body from the scene of the murder and hiding it over four miles away before absconding with her car. Id. at 1227. And for the third factor, the court found that “the callous nature of the crime, [Howell]’s blatant disregard for the importance of human life, and his demonstrated pattern of criminal conduct render him a continuing threat to society.” Id. at 1229. -10- The court next reviewed Howell’s mitigation evidence. It listed eleven different claims Howell offered in mitigation, including that “his childhood was poor and violent,” that “he suffers from a brain dysfunction,” and that “he never received any intervention to recognize and treat his deficiencies.” Id. Acknowledging Howell’s mitigation case, the court nevertheless concluded that the death sentence was “factually substantiated and appropriate.” Id. The court also found that the penalty was imposed without the influence of juror “passion, prejudice[,] or any other arbitrary factor.” Id. Thus, the death sentence was affirmed.