Court Opinion

ID: 9796892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:07:47.313041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:37.747467
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Viee-Presiding Judge,
concur in Part/Dissent in part:
T1 I concur in the decision to deny the request for a stay of execution and, in a proper proceeding, the finding that Oklahoma's execution protocol is constitutional. However, I disagree with the way in which this result was reached and question as to whether it is properly before the Court. Initially, I would not treat Appellant's claim as a subsequent post-conviction application. Under 22 0.98.2001, $ 1089(D)(8) Appellant's claim is waived as he cannot show the claim could not have been presented to this Court previously. Failure to adhere to statutory requirements, as well as this Court's own Rules, creates inconsistency and brings into question the validity of the Court's opinions.
T2 Further, I find taking the attached affidavits as evidence troublesome. Affidavits are ex parte supplementations of the record. This Court reviews affidavits only to determine whether the threshold showing of clear and convicting evidence as been met to warrant an evidentiary hearing. See Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, ¶¶ 115 & 121, 4 P.3d 702, 731-82. The assertions in affidavits have not been tested in an adversary proceeding and they are not a part of the record of evidence before the Court.
13 Additionally, I find Appellant's request to be spared the imposition of his legally imposed punishment because it might cause him to suffer or experience pain unpersuasive (and rather fronic) as his murderous acts *1240have been the cause of the ultimate pain and suffering for the victim and her family.