Opinion ID: 215844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: OCCA's resolution of the issue

Text: In Turnbull, the OCCA sua sponte anticipated and resolved the double jeopardy argument that Selsor now asserts. Selsor II, 2 P.3d at 349. Specifically, the OCCA stated: [I]f a defendant has not been acquitted of the death penalty and his conviction and sentence are reversed on appeal or collateral proceedings, the slate is wiped clean and a defendant may be subjected to any punishment authorized by law, including death. Turnbull, 947 P.2d at 583 (citing Salazar v. State, 919 P.2d 1120, 1127 (Okla.Crim. App.1996)). Selsor asked the OCCA to revisit the issue on direct appeal following his retrial. Selsor argued that his case present[ed] the unique question of whether an appellate court's modification of a death sentence on appeal to life imprisonment on the grounds that the statute under which the defendant was sentenced was subsequently declared unconstitutional constitutes an implied acquittal of the death penalty. State Aplt. Br. at 38. Selsor in turn argued that under the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, specifically Bullington, Rumsey, and Poland, the OCCA's decision in Selsor I to modify [his] death sentence to life imprisonment constituted an `implied acquittal' on the merits of the central issue in the proceeding: whether death was the appropriate punishment for the offense. Id. The OCCA summarily rejected the claim, concluding that the argument was adequately resolved in . . . Turnbull,  and that nothing in [Selsor's new appellate] brief [wa]s convincing or persuasive enough to change th[at] result[]. Selsor II, 2 P.3d at 350.