Opinion ID: 215844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 34

Heading: Selsor's failure to present claim to the OCCA

Text: It is uncontroverted that Selsor never presented this claim to the OCCA. Selsor argues, however, that exhaustion of the claim was futile because the OCCA has consistently upheld admission of similar evidence. Indeed, Selsor asserts, [t]he OCCA upheld admission of a victim's death recommendation the same day it decided [his] appeal. Aplt. Br. at 104 (citing Welch v. State, 2 P.3d 356, 373 (Okla.Crim.App. 2000) (Victim impact testimony may include information about the victim, circumstances surrounding the crime, the manner in which the crime was perpetrated, and the victim's opinion of a recommended sentence.)). A state prisoner generally may not raise a claim for federal habeas corpus relief unless he has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). To exhaust a claim, a state prisoner must pursue it through one complete round of the State's established appellate review process, giving the state courts a full and fair opportunity to correct alleged constitutional errors. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). If a state prisoner has not properly exhausted state remedies, the federal courts ordinarily will not entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus unless exhaustion would have been futile because either there is an absence of available State corrective process or circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii). The state prisoner bears the burden of proving that he exhausted state court remedies, see McCormick v. Kline, 572 F.3d 841, 851 (10th Cir.2009), or that exhaustion would have been futile, see Clonce v. Presley, 640 F.2d 271, 273 (10th Cir.1981). In the instant case, we conclude, out of an abundance of caution, that Selsor has sufficiently established that exhaustion of his claim with the OCCA would have been futile. In particular, Selsor correctly notes that the OCCA, both at the time it decided his direct appeal and for several years thereafter, consistently approved of the admission during second-stage capital proceedings of a victim's opinion of [the] recommended sentence. Welch, 2 P.3d at 373; see Murphy v. State, 47 P.3d 876, 885 (Okla.Crim.App.2002) (same).