Opinion ID: 170276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Application of the killing to avoid arrest aggravator

Text: Mr. Brown next challenges the application of the killing to avoid arrest aggravator. During post-conviction proceedings, the OCCA determined that this contention was not raised on direct appeal: Brown has not shown that the facts or law supporting this claim were unavailable to direct appeal counsel. Unpublished Op. Denying Relief, filed Nov. 8, 1999, in Case No. PC-98-1251, at 3. Thus, the OCCA held Mr. Brown waived this contention. Id.; see OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 22, §§ 1080-1089. [2] The district court noted the procedural bar imposed by Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1086, 1089. Section 1089(C) provides that only matters which were not and could not have been raised in direct appeal can be raised during post-conviction review. See OKLA. STAT ANN. tit. 22, § 1089(C)(1); Rule 9.7(B)(1) and (2), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (1996); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 754, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) ([T]he petitioner . . . must bear the burden of a failure to follow state procedural rules.). On habeas review, this court will not consider issues that have been defaulted in state court on an independent and adequate state procedural ground, unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Hickman v. Spears, 160 F.3d 1269, 1271 (10th Cir.1998). Like the district court, then, we typically cannot review the claim without Mr. Brown's establishing either (a) cause and prejudice from his failure to raise the claim on direct review or (b) a fundamental miscarriage of justice resulting from this court's failure to review. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546. However, in the interest of efficiency, we have held that [w]e can avoid deciding procedural bar questions where claims can readily be dismissed on the merits. Snow v. Sirmons, 474 F.3d 693, 717 (10th Cir.2007). This exception applies here. The avoid arrest aggravator requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) there was another crime separate and distinct from the murder; and (2) that Mr. Brown committed the murder with the intent to avoid being arrested or prosecuted for that other crime. OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit 21, 701.12(5); Mitchell v. State, 136 P.3d 671, 677 (Okla.Crim. App.2006). Here, the State proceeded with two theories of first-degree murderfelony murder during the commission of the crime of robbery with a dangerous weapon, and first-degree malice murder. The jury was allowed to find him guilty under either theory. Additionally, the State charged and the jury found Mr. Brown guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon. Under Alverson v. State, 983 P.2d 498, 521 (Okla.Crim.App.1999), if the jury did not specify which of these two offenses it found, then the verdict will be interpreted as felony murder. Thus, under Mr. Brown's theory, there is no separate and distinct predicate crime for the jury to find this aggravator. See id. at 520 (listing requirements of avoid arrest aggravator as (a) a predicate crime existed, apart from the murder, from which the defendant sought to avoid arrest/prosecution; and (b) the State presented evidence establishing the defendant's intent to kill in order to avoid arrest/prosecution). But, the OCCA has held that in such instances the underlying felony can be the basis for the avoid arrest aggravator. In most cases in which the avoid arrest aggravator is found by the jury, the predicate crime is also charged as a separate crime and results in a separate conviction. Such cases typically involve first-degree malice murder convictions, with, separate convictions for robbery, burglary, rape, kidnaping, or one or more other murders. This separate crime (or crimes) then also constitutes the predicate crime for the avoid arrest aggravator in the second stage of the capital trial. Similarly, in cases in which the capital defendant is charged with first-degree felony murder, the crime that serves as the underlying felony for the murder conviction can also serve as the predicate crime far the avoid arrest aggravator in the second stage. Mitchell, 136 P.3d at 677-78 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted); see also Wackerly v. State, 12 P.3d 1, 14 (Okla.Crim.App. 2000) (reasoning that robbery and murder can be contemporaneous and that evidence may be sufficient to support a finding that a murder was committed to avoid arrest or prosecution). In light of the OCCA's interpretation of what constitutes a separate and distinct crime, we conclude that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the avoiding arrest aggravator, and thus that Mr. Brown's claim is without merit.