Court Opinion

ID: 9800319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:12:01.261339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:22.603645
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, J.,
with whom WINCHESTER, J. joins, dissenting.,
For the third time in this case, I dissent and urge that this Court transfer all the issues to the Court of Criminal Appeals, In the first and final analysis, all of the Appellant's claims are eriminal in nature, This is a challenge to the method and protocol used in the execution of the death penalty. As I wrote in my second dissent, all these issues are "inextricably intertwined" with criminal procedure and criminal law. This is simply an Eighth Amendment erue!l and unusual punishment challenge to the death penalty. There is nothing new about that.
This case has traveled a very long and complete Journey through full due process of law. I warned in a previous dissent that this Court was crossing the Rubicon in its refusal to transfer this case to the proper court and now it is clear that the Appellants are taking full advantage of our being on the wrong side of that proverbial river, This diversion at the end of that journey is ignoring longstanding precedent and recent law. Maynard v. Layden, 1992 OK CR 31, 830 P.2d 581. See Sells v. Livingston, 750 F.3d 478, 2014 WL 18357039 (5th Cir2014); Sells v. Livingston, 561 Fed.Appx. 342, 2014 WL 18316889 (5th Cir.2014) cert. denied -- U.S. ---, 134 S.Ct. 1787, 188 L.Ed.2d 612, 2014 WL 1825278 (2014); Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir.2009) cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1026, 130 S.Ct. 3507, 177 L.Ed.2d 1092 (2010).
I disagree with the Order entered by the majority in this case wherein it speaks of the "gravity of the first impression constitutional issues" before this Court,. I find absolutely no "gravity" in the Appellant's claims,