Court Opinion

ID: 9558403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:09:01.777847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:11.561961
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in results:
I concur in the decision to deny post-conviction relief in this case. However, I write. separately to address the following.
Petitioner’s preliminary complaint regarding the constitutionality of the Capital Post-Conviction Act was not contained in the Application for Post-Conviction Relief. Therefore, it is not properly before this Court and we should not consider the claim. Conover v. State, 933 P.2d 904 (Okl.Cr.1997); Rogers v. State, 934 P.2d 1093, 1098, n. 18 (Okl.Cr. 1997).
Petitioner’s argument in his eleventh proposition of error that the cumulative effect of errors at trial denied him a fair trial could have been raised on direct appeal. Therefore, further consideration is procedurally barred.
Further, our Rule 3.11 was intentionally formulated to be compatible with the new post-conviction procedure act and not in conflict with it. All issues relating to the trial should be raised in the direct appeal. The rule was fashioned to afford an appellant the vehicle to supplement the direct appeal record with relevant, factually supported evidence to ensure an appealable issue relating to ineffective assistance of trial counsel is addressed at the first opportunity and to ensure that additional delay is not built into the process. Concomitant with that privilege is the responsibility of direct appeal counsel to determine in a timely manner if facts support a request to supplement the record to address a viable issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal.