Opinion ID: 798459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Proposition Three: equal protection/due process violation

Text: In Proposition Three of his appellate brief, Thacker contends that he was denied Equal Protection and Due Process of law because the Oklahoma courts failed to follow established procedures to determine whether he desired an appeal. Aplt. Br. at 58. In support, Thacker contends that his [trial] counsel's failure to file the proper paperwork to initiate [a certiorari] appeal[, i.e., a motion to withdraw his guilty plea,] had the legal effect of placing him in the same category as [capital defendant] volunteers who have expressly waived their appeal rights. ROA, Vol. 1 at 60 (petition for writ of habeas corpus). Thacker further contends that, although Oklahoma has an established procedure it applies to such persons before permitting them to waive their appeals, including a requisite mental-health evaluation and a hearing before the state trial court to determine whether the defendant is competent to waive his capital direct appeal, [t]hat procedure was not followed in [his] case. Id. As a result, Thacker contends, he had no opportunity to present winning claims in state court [but he does not identify precisely what those winning claims might be]. Id.