Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1086 (2026)

Subsequent application

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All grounds for relief available to an applicant under the Post- Conviction Procedure Act, including claims challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court, must be raised in his or her original, supplemental or amended application. Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the prior application. Laws 1970, c. 220, § 7, eff. July 1, 1970. Amended by Laws 2022, c. 144, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2022.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 183 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Williams v. Trammell, 782 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Williams v. Trammell, 782 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “2007) (summarizing Oklahoma’s rule for bringing claims in - 48 - post-conviction relief applications); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 22 §§ 1086, 1089(D)(2), (8)– (9).”

Hale v. Gibson, 227 F.3d 1298 (10th Cir. 2000). · cites it 5× “4 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1086 ). Accordingly, Hale has defaulted his claim with regard to the murder conviction.”

Anderson v. Sirmons, 476 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “Building on that faulty foundation, Oklahoma further insists this court should apply an anticipatory procedural bar 7 because Anderson’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase of the trial would be procedurally barred under Okla Stat.”

Cannon v. Gibson, 259 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “3d at 1323 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1086 , 1089(D)(2)); see also Thomas, 218 F.”

Sean Richard Sellers v. Ronald Ward, Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 135 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “Yet, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously ruled the claim had been waived under Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1086 (1991). 2 He argues the federal district court’s review was clouded by that misapprehension.”

Fontenot v. Crow, 4 F.4th 982 (10th Cir. 2021). “Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent…”

Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d 1123 , 1125 ; 22 O.S.2011, § 1086. ¶15 There are even fewer grounds available to a petitioner to assert in a subsequent application for post-conviction relief.”

Robert A. Brecheen v. Dan Reynolds, Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 41 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “Breeheen’s alleged errors were, or could have been, raised on direct appeal and were therefore not subject to review under Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1086. 5 Brecheen v.”

Smith v. Workman, 550 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “We agree that Petitioner’s substantive Ake claim is procedurally barred given that the OCCA deemed the claims waived on an independent and adequate state law ground, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1086 , because it was not raised on direct appeal.”

Smallwood v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Thus, these procedural rules, in conjunction with Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, §§ 1086 , 1089, prevent state court review of this ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim.”

Hale v. State, 807 P.2d 264 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1086 provides: All grounds for relief available to an applicant under this act must be raised in his original, supplemental or amended application.”

Ellis v. Hargett, 302 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “When he raised the argument for the first time in state postconviction proceedings, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that consideration was barred by Oklahoma procedural law, set forth in Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1086 . See Walker v.”

Show all 183 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.