United States Tenth Circuit

In consolidated appeals from denials of habeas petitions based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the orders are affirmed where the district courts properly accorded deference to decisions of the Oklahoma state courts on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under 28 U.S.C. section 2254, even though those claims were based on evidence that was not part of the original trial court record and the state courts declined to supplement the record with the proffered evidence, based on Oklahoma Appellate Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b).

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/27/2009
• Published 08/27/2009

Judges

• McCONNELL, Circuit Judge, joined by HENRY, Chief Judge, and KELLY, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges., Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TACHA, KELLY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, O'BRIEN, McCONNELL, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Howard A. Pincus, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO (Raymond P. Moore, Federal Public Defender, and Lanita B. Henricksen, Henricksen & Henricksen, Oklahoma City, OK, with him on the briefs), for Petitioners Mr. Wilson and Mr. Wackerly.


• For Appellees:
  
• Seth S. Branham, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK (W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, with him on the briefs), for Respondent Mr. Workman.