Court Opinion

ID: 9559263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:25:16.869043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:24.581788
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring in results:
I concur in the results reached by the Court in this case. However, this is the second application for Post-Conviction relief. I do not find any issues arising since December 11,1990, the date this Court affirmed the denial of the first application of Post^Convietion relief. A regurgitation of issues which were raised on direct appeal or the first application for Post-Conviction relief should be summarily denied based on res judicata. Issues which could have been raised as a part of the direct appeal or first Posl^Convietion relief application, but were not, are waived. The only potential issue to which Petitioner alludes for this Court to consider is the vague, unsupported generalization of some “prior counsel” at some stage of the proceeding failed to raise some issue, which could be interpreted to allege counsel on the first application for PosU-Conviction relief failed to raise some issue. However, I fail to find any proposition of error in this record which survives the application of res judicata or procedural bar by waiver. This Court should further hold Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies as a part of its obligation to bring about finality to this conviction.