Court Opinion

ID: 9788368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:45:16.10328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:08.885865
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice-Presiding Judge:
concur in results.
¶ 1 I concur in the results reached by the Court in this case. However, I disagree with the Court’s manner of handling the ex parte materials addressed in 18. Ex parte filings are not evidence in the case as they have not been subjected to an adversarial testing in the trial court. Our Court rules and case law have consistently held that matters of this type are submitted and accepted for a very limited purpose, ie., to make a threshold showing that an evidentiary hearing in the District Court is warranted. See Rule 3.11, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2006). See also Lott v. State, 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 135, 98 P.3d 318, 351; Short v. State, 1999 OK CR 15, ¶ 93, 980 P.2d 1081, 1108. Untested ex parte filings are never to be accepted as part of the record on appeal for determination of issues presented on the merits. See Dewberry v. State, 1998 OK CR 10, ¶ 9, 954 P.2d 774, 777 (materials not presented to the trial court for review are not a part of the appellate record and should not be considered by this Court).
¶2 Reviewing the material presented in the present case, for their proper limited purpose, I find an evidentiary hearing is not supported. While Appellant may feel better about himself due to the medication he now takes, it in no way changes the fact he was competent, fully understood the rights and admonitions given by the District Court, and knowingly waived these rights. He was unequivocal at that time and his current equivocation should not be allowed to override that decision. Judge Cunningham was meticulous, thorough, and repeatedly gave Appellant an opportunity to change his mind, which he declined. Therefore, I find the decision of this Court to be factually and legally correct.