Opinion ID: 170311
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On August 11, 2004, a jury convicted Mr. Taylor of robbery with a dangerous weapon after former conviction of two or more felonies, and the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) determined that Mr. Taylor was entitled to relief on his contention that the jury received outside information regarding his arrest on another charge. Acting under its discretionary statutory authority provided under Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1066, the OCCA modified Mr. Taylor’s sentence to twenty years’ imprisonment. Mr. Taylor sought post-conviction relief, which the district court and the OCCA denied. The OCCA determined that Mr. Taylor had procedurally defaulted his claims because none had been raised in his direct appeal. In his federal petition filed under § 2254, Mr. Taylor asserted nine claims: (1) his right to due process was violated when the jury received outside information (the same claim on which the OCCA granted relief); (2) Mr. Taylor’s identification was unreliable and the procedures underlying the identification were improperly leading and suggestive; (3) the court erred in denying a mistrial or questioning the jurors after at least one juror saw him in leg irons and handcuffs; (4) prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial; (5) and (6) -2- the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction or the sentence; (7) and (8) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (9) the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that Mr. Taylor would have to serve 85% of his sentence before he would be eligible for parole.