Opinion ID: 162318
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ex Post Facto (i.e., Due Process3) Claim

Text: 33 It might appear that this claim, which arose only in response to the OCCA's new construction of the amended second degree murder statute in its decision on Mr. Willingham's direct appeal, has never been exhausted in state court. However, Mr. Willingham raised it in a petition for rehearing from that decision, which was denied without explanation by the OCCA. Under Aycox v. Lytle, 196 F.3d 1174, 1177-78 (1999), the latter disposition could still be entitled to deference under § 2254(d), even though it would be left to the federal courts to articulate an appropriate rationale for the OCCA's summary decision. As it happens, the OCCA explained in a later case why the change in LIO law effected by its decision on Mr. Willingham's appeal did not violate any ex post facto prohibition. In Phillips v. State, 989 P.2d 1017, 1034 (Okla.Crim.App. 1999), the OCCA rejected an essentially identical claim for the following reason: 34 Although Willingham was handed down six (6) months after the trial in this case, the law upon which the decision that second degree depraved mind murder is not a lesser included offense of malice murder was based was the 1976 amendment to the statute. Therefore, as the statutory language upon which this Court relied for its authority was in effect at the time of the murder and trial in this case, it appears that no possible ex post facto violation is present. 35 The problem with this rationale, which might be upheld under § 2254(d) in the context of a retroactive legislative change as a reasonable application of Ex Post Facto Clause jurisprudence, is that, as noted in footnote 3 above, Mr. Willingham's claim arises, rather, under the Due Process Clause and is therefore governed by somewhat different principles never considered by the OCCA. 36 The Supreme Court recently clarified that due process limitations on the retroactive application of judicial interpretations of criminal statutes apply to those decisions that are `unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue.' Rogers, 532 U.S. at 461, 121 S.Ct. 1693 (quoting Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 354, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964) (quotation omitted)). This court employed appropriate due process standards in this context before Rogers' clarification/reaffirmation of Bouie. Of particular relevance here is Fultz v. Embry, 158 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir.1998), in which we held that a state decision, much like Willingham, belatedly interpreting and applying legislative amendments a number of years ... after passage of these new laws was an example of the sort of foreseeable decision whose retroactive application was constitutionally permissible. Id. at 1103-04. 37 Of course, the question whether the OCCA's decision in Willingham was unexpected and indefensible also depends on the merit or plausibility of its holding in light of the legal principles and statutory language on which it was based. In that regard, it should be clear from what has been said above that the OCCA's application of its statutory elements test to the amended second degree murder statute cannot be characterized as indefensible, even if the OCCA's prior failure to acknowledge the statutory change made its sudden attention to the matter unexpected. Further, the OCCA's later reversal of position in Shrum reflected a global reassessment of its approach to the LIO question — resulting in its abandonment of the straightforward but inflexible elements test for a broader approach permitting instruction on any lesser homicide offense supported by the trial record — and, thus, Shrum's contrary result does not suggest that the OCCA's analysis in Willingham was indefensible on its own terms. In sum, we hold that Mr. Willingham has failed to make out a due process violation under the Rogers-Bouie standard.