legal basis claim in Oklahoma

2021The issue could not have been previously presented because the legal basis for the claim was unavailable. 22 O.S. §§ 1089(D)(8)(a), 1089(D)(9)(a); McGirt v. Oklahoma , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020).

2021The issue could not have been previously presented because the legal basis for the claim was unavailable. 22 O.S. §§ 1089(D)(8)(a), 1089(D)(9)(a); McGirt v. Oklahoma , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020).

2023FOOTNOTES Glossip v. State , 2001 OK CR 21 29 P.3d 597 8. . . . if a subsequent application for post-conviction relief is filed after filing an original application, the Court of Criminal Appeals may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the . . . subsequent application, unless: a. the application contains claims and issues that 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 legal basis for the claim was unavailable, or b. (1) the application contains suffi

2023FOOTNOTES Glossip v. State , 2001 OK CR 21 29 P.3d 597 8. . . . if a subsequent application for post-conviction relief is filed after filing an original application, the Court of Criminal Appeals may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the . . . subsequent application, unless: a. the application contains claims and issues that 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 legal basis for the claim was unavailable, or b. (1) the application contains suffi

2021None of the cases on which the State relies concern a claim of lack of jurisdiction. 10 Respondent also misunderstands the discussion in Ex parte Wilson , 140 U.S. 575 (1891).

2021None of the cases on which the State relies concern a claim of lack of jurisdiction. 10 Respondent also misunderstands the discussion in Ex parte Wilson , 140 U.S. 575 (1891).

1997Under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, a legal basis for a claim is deemed to have been unavailable for direct appeal “if the legal ground supporting it either was not recognized by a court as precedent at the time of his direct appeal or is a new rule of constitutional law which has been given retroactive effect.” Walker, 933 P.2d at 339 .

1997Under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, a legal basis for a claim is deemed to have been unavailable for direct appeal "if the legal ground supporting it either was not recognized by a court as precedent at the time of his direct appeal or is a new rule of constitutional law which has been given retroactive effect." Walker, 933 P.2d at 339 .

2017Oklahoma Water Resources Board , 2003 OK 29, n.1 , 66 P.3d 432, n.1 . 2 At the hearing, Kemp Stone limited the legal basis for its claim to whether the action was frivolous when filed. 62 O.S.2011, § 373 provides, in part: If all claims stated by the resident taxpayers in the written demand are determined in a court of competent jurisdiction to be frivolous, the resident taxpayers who signed such demand and who are parties to the lawsuit in which such claims are determined to be frivolous shall be jointly and severally liable for all reasonable attorney fees and court costs incurred by any pub

2017Oklahoma Water Resources Board , 2003 OK 29, n.1 , 66 P.3d 432, n.1 . 2 At the hearing, Kemp Stone limited the legal basis for its claim to whether the action was frivolous when filed. 62 O.S.2011, § 373 provides, in part: If all claims stated by the resident taxpayers in the written demand are determined in a court of competent jurisdiction to be frivolous, the resident taxpayers who signed such demand and who are parties to the lawsuit in which such claims are determined to be frivolous shall be jointly and severally liable for all reasonable attorney fees and court costs incurred by any pub

2013We will take up the State's use of these two substi tute witnesses separately, since they played quite different roles at Miller's retrial, after first reviewing the legal basis for his claim and its development in the trial court. 1 95 Miller focuses his Proposition X claim upon the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 LEd.2d 177 (2004), which was decided prior to his 2008 retrial, and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 LEd.2d 314 (2009), which was decided afterward.

2013We will take up the State's use of these two substi tute witnesses separately, since they played quite different roles at Miller's retrial, after first reviewing the legal basis for his claim and its development in the trial court. 1 95 Miller focuses his Proposition X claim upon the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 LEd.2d 177 (2004), which was decided prior to his 2008 retrial, and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 LEd.2d 314 (2009), which was decided afterward.

2013We will take up the State's use of these two substi tute witnesses separately, since they played quite different roles at Miller's retrial, after first reviewing the legal basis for his claim and its development in the trial court. 1 95 Miller focuses his Proposition X claim upon the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 LEd.2d 177 (2004), which was decided prior to his 2008 retrial, and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 LEd.2d 314 (2009), which was decided afterward.

2013We will take up the State's use of these two substi tute witnesses separately, since they played quite different roles at Miller's retrial, after first reviewing the legal basis for his claim and its development in the trial court. 1 95 Miller focuses his Proposition X claim upon the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 LEd.2d 177 (2004), which was decided prior to his 2008 retrial, and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , 174 LEd.2d 314 (2009), which was decided afterward.

2013The Court's landmark decision in Crawford emphasized that a defendant's right to cross-examine the witnesses against him is "the centerpiece of the Sixth Amendment's confrontation right." 96 In Crawford, the Supreme Court distinguished between "testimonial" evidence and "nontestimonial" evidence and held that "[where testimonial evidence is at issue, ... the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination." 97 ( 96 In its 2009 decision in Melendez-Diaz, the Supreme Court further clarified the meaning and reach of Crawford, find

2013The Court's landmark decision in Crawford emphasized that a defendant's right to cross-examine the witnesses against him is "the centerpiece of the Sixth Amendment's confrontation right." 96 In Crawford, the Supreme Court distinguished between "testimonial" evidence and "nontestimonial" evidence and held that "[where testimonial evidence is at issue, ... the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination." 97 ( 96 In its 2009 decision in Melendez-Diaz, the Supreme Court further clarified the meaning and reach of Crawford, find

2013The Court's landmark decision in Crawford emphasized that a defendant's right to cross-examine the witnesses against him is "the centerpiece of the Sixth Amendment's confrontation right." 96 In Crawford, the Supreme Court distinguished between "testimonial" evidence and "nontestimonial" evidence and held that "[where testimonial evidence is at issue, ... the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination." 97 ( 96 In its 2009 decision in Melendez-Diaz, the Supreme Court further clarified the meaning and reach of Crawford, find

2008In Skelly v. State, 1994 OK CR 55, ¶ 11-13 , 880 P.2d 401, 405 , the Court found that a seizure of a person occurs within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when, in light of all the attendant circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave, and went further to explain the framework of the legal basis for that rule.

2008In Skelly v. State, 1994 OK CR 55, ¶ 11-13 , 880 P.2d 401, 405 , the Court found that a seizure of a person occurs within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when, in light of all the attendant circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave, and went further to explain the framework of the legal basis for that rule.

2003Therefore, post-conviction relief on Proposition Two is not warranted. ¶ 7 Petitioner argues review of Proposition One is authorized by Section 1089(D)(9), because the legal basis for the claim "was not recognized by" a final decision of the United States Supreme Court, until that Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).

2003Therefore, post-conviction relief on Proposition Two is not warranted. ¶ 7 Petitioner argues review of Proposition One is authorized by Section 1089(D)(9), because the legal basis for the claim "was not recognized by" a final decision of the United States Supreme Court, until that Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).

2002Breard, id., 523 U.S. at 376 , 118 S.Ct. at 1355 . ¶ 21 The State of Oklahoma submits, and we agree, that the legal basis for his claim was available to him from the time of his arrest, and consequently at the time of his first post-conviction application.

2002Breard, id., 523 U.S. at 376 , 118 S.Ct. at 1355 . ¶ 21 The State of Oklahoma submits, and we agree, that the legal basis for his claim was available to him from the time of his arrest, and consequently at the time of his first post-conviction application.

2002Breard, id., 523 U.S. at 376 , 118 S.Ct. at 1355 . €21 The State of Oklahoma submits, and we agree, that the legal basis for his claim was available to him from the time of his arrest, and consequently at the time of his first post-conviction application.

2002Breard, id., 523 U.S. at 376 , 118 S.Ct. at 1355 . ¶ 21 The State of Oklahoma submits, and we agree, that the legal basis for his claim was available to him from the time of his arrest, and consequently at the time of his first post-conviction application.

1997In Petitioner’s mandatory sentence review, we remarked that there was “never any real question of his competency,” Wallace, 893 P.2d at 516 .

1997In Petitioner's mandatory sentence review, we remarked that there was "never any real question of his competency," Wallace, 893 P.2d at 516 .