Medlock v. StateAnnotate this Case
Medlock v. State
1996 OK CR 58
927 P.2d 1069
Case Number: PC-96-1081
FLOYD ALLEN MEDLOCK, PETITIONER, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, RESPONDENT
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Bryan Lester Dupler, Sandra Mulhair Cinnamon, Appellate Defense Counsel, Capital Post-Conviction Division, Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, Norman, OK, for petitioner on post-conviction appeal.
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
CHAPEL, Vice Presiding Judge:
[927 P.2d 1070]
¶1 Floyd Allen Medlock pleaded guilty to First Degree Murder, in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 701.7, before the Honorable Edward C. Cunningham in Canadian County District Court. The district court accepted Medlock's guilty plea and, after a sentencing hearing, sentenced Medlock to death. Medlock filed an application to withdraw his plea, which the district court denied. Medlock appealed to this Court. The Court affirmed the district court's denial of Medlock's application to withdraw his plea and affirmed his death sentence.
(1) . . . a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel which requires factfinding outside the direct appeal record, or
(2) . . . a claim contained in an original timely application for post-conviction relief relating to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and the Court of Criminal Appeals first finds that if the allegations in the application were true, the performance of appellate counsel constitutes the denial [927 P.2d 1071] of reasonably competent assistance of appellate counsel under prevailing professional norms. If the court makes this finding the court may consider the claim during the post-conviction proceeding or, if appropriate, during the direct appeal.
Thus, it is evident that both Oklahoma law and fundamental doctrines of judicial economy strictly limit the issues that Medlock may raise and that this Court may review on an application for post-conviction relief. We now turn to the three issues that Medlock has raised in his application for post-conviction relief
¶4 In his first proposition of error, Medlock argues that the rulings of both the trial court and this Court deprived him of his right to a full and fair hearing on the merits of his claim that trial counsel had a conflict of interest rendering him ineffective during the hearing on his application to withdraw his plea. Medlock raised this issue in his direct appeal, and res judicata and Oklahoma's Post-Conviction Procedure Act bar re-litigation of this question.
¶5 In his second proposition of error, Medlock argues that his execution violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution because he suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder ("MPD"). Medlock did not raise this issue in his direct appeal, and now, in his application for post-conviction relief, Medlock asserts that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue. We disagree.
¶6 While appellate counsel should raise relevant issues for this Court to review on direct appeal, appellate counsel is not obligated to raise every non-frivolous issue.
¶8 Medlock has failed to make any showing that he is now insane or that he will be insane at the time of his execution.
¶9 In his third proposition of error, Medlock alleges that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the claim that trial counsel was ineffective because he lost certain medical records relevant to Medlock's mental illness claim. Although it appears that certain medical records were lost during the course of Medlock's sentencing hearing, it is not clear who actually lost the records. Medlock claims that the loss of these records undermined the credibility of his claim that he had long suffered from MPD. While the prosecutor referred to the lost records in challenging Medlock's claim that he suffered from MPD, it is not evident that the lost records were critical in the district court's determination of sentence. We find trial counsel was not ineffective and further conclude that had appellate counsel included this additional alleged error, the result of his appeal would have been the same. Medlock was not prejudiced by appellate counsel's omission. Accordingly, relief is denied.
¶10 We have carefully reviewed Medlock's application for post-conviction relief and request for an evidentiary hearing, and find that Medlock is not entitled to relief. The Application for Post-Conviction Relief and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED.
JOHNSON, P.J., and LANE, J., concur.
LUMPKIN, J., concurs in results.
STRUBHAR, J., recuses.
1 887 P.2d 1333 (Okl.Cr. 1994).
2 ___ U.S. ___ 116 S. Ct. 310, 133 L. Ed. 2d 213 (1995).
3 The Oklahoma Legislature recently revised Oklahoma's capital post-conviction procedure. 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089 (eff. Nov. 1, 1995). Section 1089 requires Medlock to file his application for post-conviction relief directly with this Court. The State is not required to respond to the application.
4 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(C)(1)(2).
5 Rojem v. State, 925 P.2d 70 (Okl.Cr. 1996); Moore v. State, 889 P.2d 1253, 1255 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 215, 133 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1995); Fowler v. State, 896 P.2d 566, 569 (Okl.Cr. 1995).
7 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(a).
8 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(b).
9 In a footnote, Medlock suggests that an intervening change in the law allows this Court to reconsider this issue. We reject Medlock's claim that there was an intervening change in the law and refuse to consider this proposition of error under both the judicial doctrine of res judicata and the post-conviction procedure statutes of this State.
10 Application for Post-Conviction Relief and Request for Evidentiary Hearing at 8.
11 Castro v. State, 880 P.2d 387, 389-90 (Okl.Cr. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 1375, 131 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1995).
12 Boyd v. State, 915 P.2d 922, (Okl.Cr. 1996); Hooks v. State, 902 P.2d 1120, 1123-24 (Okl.Cr. 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 1440, 134 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1996); Stiles v. State, 902 P.2d 1104, 1107 (Okl.Cr. 1995), cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 1257, 134 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1996).
13 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(b)(2).
14 Stiles, 902 P.2d at 1107. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686-87, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (to warrant reversal of conviction or sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show (1) counsel's performance was so deficient that he was not functioning as "counsel" as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense).
15 Stiles, 902 P.2d at 1107.
16 Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S. Ct. 2595, 91 L. Ed. 2d 335 (1986); Fisher v. State, 845 P.2d 1272, 1276 (Okl.Cr. 1992) cert. denied, 509 U.S. 911, 113 S. Ct. 3014, 125 L. Ed. 2d 704 (1993).
17 22 O.S.1991, §§ 1005-1008.
18 Although Medlock attached an appendix to his brief, he has not submitted any affidavits or material to show that he is currently insane or that he will be insane at the time of his execution. See Rule 9.7 (D)(1), (5) & (6), Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, (to be codified at 22 O.S.Supp.1996, ch. 18, App.).