Court Opinion

ID: 9570012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:19:19.147682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:36.413726
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
In disposing of the first portion of appellant’s third assignment of error, the majority holds that the issue is barred by res judicata. I agree with this conclusion. However, for the reasons stated below, I would also note that there appears to have been no conflict of interest regarding appellate counsel’s representation of appellant.
The record reveals that in 1977 appellant entered pleas of guilty, pursuant to a plea *1253agreement, to two (2) felony charges m Stephens County District Court before then District Judge Hegel Branch, Jr. Following appellant’s conviction in the present case, Mr. Branch, as an attorney in private practice, was appointed to represent appellant on direct appeal. Branch was not aware of the prior cases at the time of his appointment, but was advised of such in a letter from appellant in mid-1981. However, appellant never filed a request for the appointment of new counsel and did not raise the issue in any previous plea for relief.
Following the evidentiary hearing in the instant action, the district court made detailed findings which set forth the above facts. The court also noted that appellant’s prior cases, over which Judge Branch presided, were not related to the present proceedings and were not referred to during appellant’s murder trial.1 Therefore, the present case is clearly distinguishable from Worthen v. State, 715 P.2d 81 (Okl.Cr.1986), the case upon which appellant’s relies in this assignment. Accordingly, even had this issue been timely raised, I would find that it is without merit.
I also wish to reiterate my opinion that the so-called “anti-sympathy” instruction in the second stage of trial is unnecessary and confusing to the jury where mitigating evidence has been introduced. See Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 579 (Okl.Cr.1989) (Parks, P.J., concurring in part/dissenting in part). As a matter of stare decisis, however, I yield my view to that of the majority of this Court.

. The only prior conviction referred to during appellant’s murder trial was one for armed robbery in 1973. Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080, 1088 (Okl.Cr.1984).