Court Opinion

ID: 9592368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:13:39.856215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:40.295962
License: Public Domain

OPINION
CHAPEL, Judge.
Richard Norman Rojem, Jr. was tried by a jury in Washita County District Court and *529convicted of kidnapping, rape and murder. The jury sentenced Rojem to 1,000 years imprisonment for rape, 1,000 years imprisonment for kidnapping, and imposed the death penalty for murder. Rojem appealed his judgment and sentence to this Court, and we affirmed.1 This Court denied Rojem’s petition for rehearing and the -United States Supreme Court denied Rojem’s petition for certiorari.2
On December 12, 1988, Rojem filed an application for post-conviction with the district court. The district court denied Ro-jem’s application and he appealed. We affirmed the district court’s order.3 On November 2, 1992, the United States Supreme Court denied Rojem’s petition for certiorari.4
On January 6, 1994, Rojem filed a second application for post-conviction relief in the district court alleging, inter alia, that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence, which he had only recently discovered. On January 20,1994, the district court dismissed the application on the grounds that this second application for post-conviction relief “was not timely filed, pursuant to Title 22, Okla. Stat.1987, S. 1089(C).” Rojem has appealed the district court’s order to this Court.
The issue before this Court is whether the time for filing subsequent applications for post-conviction relief in capital cases is governed by 22 O.S.1991, § 1086, or 22 O.S.1991, § 1089. Under the caselaw and a plain reading of the statute, we find § 1086 is controlling.
Section 1089 governs applications for post-conviction relief in capital cases. Section 1089 provides, in pertinent part:
A. The application for post-conviction relief of a defendant who is under the sentence of death and whose death sentence has been reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals in accordance with the provisions of Section 701.13 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and affirmed, shall be expedited as provided in this section.
[[Image here]]
C. 1. The application for post-conviction relief shall be filed in the district court ■which imposed the sentence within sixty (60) days:
a. from the expiration date of the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiora-ri with the United States Supreme Court; or
b. from the date that the United States Supreme Court denied the defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari.
2. The state shall have fifteen (15) days thereafter within which to file a response to the application. The district court shall make its decision within forty-five (45) days from the date that the state filed its response.
[[Image here]]
D. All matters not specifically governed by the provisions of this section shall be subject to the provisions of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. If the provisions of this act conflict with the provisions of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, the provisions of this act shall govern.
Section 1089 clearly sets out time limits for the filing of an initial application for post-conviction relief in capital eases. However, § 1089 does not refer to subsequent applications for post-conviction relief, and it does not set out a time frame for filing subsequent applications in capital cases. Section 1089(D) does provide that, “All matters not specifically governed by the provisions of this section shall be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act.” Since § 1089 does not specifically address subsequent applications for post-conviction relief, we must turn to the general provisions of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act for guidance.5
Section 1086 of the general provisions of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act ad*530dresses subsequent applications for post-conviction relief:
All grounds for relief available to an applicant under this act must be raised in his original, supplemental or amended application. Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the prior application.
Section 1086 clearly controls subsequent applications for post-conviction relief and sets forth the constraints and limitations imposed on petitioners filing such applications.6 Based on the plain language of §§ 1089 and 1086 and the caselaw of this Court,7 we must conclude that § 1086 controls subsequent applications for post-conviction relief in capital cases.
Section 1086 does not impose any time limits on petitioners filing subsequent applications for post-conviction relief. Since § 1086 controls the filing of Rojem’s subsequent application, Rojem was not required to file his application within a specified time frame. Therefore, Rojem’s subsequent application for post-conviction relief was timely filed in accordance with § 1086.
As Rojem has complied with the procedural rules governing subsequent applications for post-conviction relief, we must reverse the district court’s order dismissing his application as not timely filed. Rojem has further requested that this Court order the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing in his post-conviction proceeding. We decline to do so. The district court is to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted in this case.8 “If the district court determines that an evidentiary hearing should be held, that hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date that the state filed its response, and the district court shall issue its ruling within forty-five (45) days from the date of the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing.”9
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order dismissing Rojem’s subsequent application for post-conviction relief and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings.
LANE and STRUBHAR, JJ., concur.
*531LUMPKIN, P.J., specially concur.
JOHNSON, V.P.J., concur in result.

. Rojem v. State, 753 P.2d 359 (Okl.Cr.1988).

. Rojem v. Oklahoma, 488 U.S. 900, 109 S.Ct. 249, 102 L.Ed.2d 238 (1988).

. Rojem v. State, 829 P.2d 683 (Okl.Cr.1992).

. Rojem v. Oklahoma, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 420, 121 L.Ed.2d 343 (1992).

. See generally Duvall v. State, 871 P.2d 1386, 1387 (Okl.Cr.1994).

. Subsequent applications for post-conviction relief can only be filed under certain, limited circumstances. "Section 1086 limits the relief available on subsequent petitions to only 'those grounds which for sufficient reason[s] were not asserted or [were] inadequately raised.’ ” Johnson v. State, 823 P.2d 370, 372 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1984, 118 L.Ed.2d 582 (1992), quoting, 22 O.S.1981, § 1086. See VanWoundenberg v. State, 818 P.2d 913, 915 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1693, 118 L.Ed.2d 405 (1992) (intervening change in law justified subsequent application for post-conviction relief in capital case). Rojem claims that the reason he has filed a subsequent application for post-conviction is that he only recently discovered certain evidence — which he claims is exculpatory and was suppressed by the State — and that he was unaware of this information when he filed his direct appeal and initial application for post-conviction relief. The merits of Rojem’s claims are not before this Court. The only question we are facing is whether or not Rojem's subsequent application for post-conviction relief was timely filed.

. See Duvall, 871 P.2d at 1387 (noting that in prior cases the Court relied on § 1086 to allow review of subsequent applications for post-conviction relief in capital cases); VanWoundenberg, 818 P.2d at 915 (§ 1086 allowed Court to address petitioner's complaints in second post-conviction appeal); Stafford v. State, 815 P.2d 685, 687 (Okl.Cr.1991) (same); see also Hale v. State, 807 P.2d 264, 266 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 902, 112 S.Ct. 280, 116 L.Ed.2d 231 (1991).

. 22 O.S.1991, § 1084 provides:
If the application cannot be disposed of on the pleadings and record, or there exists a material issue of fact, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing at which time a record shall be made and preserved. The court may receive proof by affidavits, depositions, oral testimony, or other evidence and may order the applicant brought before it for the hearing. A judge should not preside at such a hearing if his testimony is material. The court shall make specific findings of fact, and state expressly its conclusions of law, relating to each issue presented. This order is a final judgment.

. 22 O.S.1991, § 1089(C)(3).