Court Opinion

ID: 9849420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:39:55.702543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:23.632455
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurs in results:
¶ 1 I concur in the Court’s decision to deny the Petitioner’s Application for Post-Conviction Relief and Request for Evidentia-ry Hearing and Discovery. However, I would find the proposition labeled Preliminary Complaint is not properly before the Court due to the fact it is not contained in the Application for Post-Conviction Relief. See Conover v. State, 942 P.2d 229, 231, fn. 1, (Okl.Cr.1997).
¶2 As to the allegations of ineffective assistance of trial and direct appeal counsel, I have reviewed Petitioner’s application, together with the argument and authority provided. In accordance with the criteria set out in Braun v. State, 937 P.2d 505, 511-514 (Okl.Cr.1997), I concur with the Court’s decision that counsel’s performance was not deficient and the underlying substantive claims sought to be raised by Petitioner are procedurally barred.
¶3 In addition, it should be noted the criteria set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for evaluating effectiveness of counsel has been further explained in Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 *1199L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). Applying the Lockhart standard, the record is void of any evidence the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect or unreliable.