Opinion ID: 171412
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Charging Documents

Text: The OCCA concluded this claim was procedurally barred. However, the magistrate and the district court did not address the procedural bar applied by the OCCA. Rather, the claim was addressed on its merits. We will do the same. See United States v. Wiseman, 297 F.3d 975, 980 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Consideration of the procedural bar would not be an efficient use of judicial resources in this case.”). Ledford maintains Oklahoma law defines an automobile as a “dangerous” weapon, not a “deadly” weapon as was alleged in the charging documents. The district court correctly noted Ledford failed to produce any Oklahoma law which stands for the proposition that an automobile cannot be a deadly weapon. There is no doubt a car can be a deadly weapon when used in the manner it was used by Ledford here. This claim has no merit. We DENY Ledford’s request for a COA and DISMISS the application. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Terrence L. O’Brien