TORRES v. STATE

TORRES v. STATE
2002 OK CR 35
58 P.3d 214
Case Number: PCD-2002-1047
Decided: 10/31/2002
OSBALDO TORRES, Appellant -vs- STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee

OPINION DENYING SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY OF EXECUTION, AND DENYING
REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

CHAPEL, JUDGE:

¶1 Osbaldo Torres was tried by jury, convicted of first degree murder and other charges, and received the death penalty in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-1993-4302. This Court affirmed Torres's conviction for murder, and the United States Supreme Court denied Torres's petition for certiorari.

¶2 This Court may not consider the merits of a subsequent application for post-conviction relief "unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims and issues have not been and could not have been presented previously in a timely original application or in a previously considered application filed under this section, because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable."

¶3 In both his propositions of error Torres relies on Ring v. Arizona,

¶4 In Oklahoma, jurors are the actual and ultimate fact-finders throughout both stages of a capital trial. A defendant is only eligible for the death penalty if one or more aggravating circumstances are present.

¶5 Torres argues that Oklahoma jurors should be instructed that aggravating circumstances must outweigh mitigating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,

¶6 Torres misunderstands the structure of Oklahoma's death penalty statutes. First, a defendant must be found guilty of first degree murder and at least one aggravating circumstance must be alleged.

¶7 Oklahoma's provision that jurors make the factual finding of an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt is all that Ring requires. Once that finding is made, the substantive elements of the capital crime are satisfied. Contrary to Torres's argument, this Court does not engage in fact-finding on a substantive element of a capital crime when reweighing evidence on appeal. The jury has already found the substantive facts - the existence of aggravating circumstances - and this Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the jury's regarding that finding when reweighing. The jury itself, having found an aggravating circumstance, is free to balance aggravating circumstances and mitigating evidence. These propositions are denied. Decision

The Subsequent Application for Post-Conviction Relief is DENIED. [58 P.3d 216]

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

VICKI RUTH ADAMS WERNEKE
1623 CROSS CENTER DRIVE
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73019
POST-CONVICTION ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENTS

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

OPINION BY: CHAPEL, J.

FOOTNOTES