(DOWNLOAD) "Wilson v. Tulsa Junior College" by Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Wilson v. Tulsa Junior College
- Author : Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 31, 1998
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
In 1985, an Oklahoma City jury convicted Petitioner Bigler Jobe Stouffer of the first degree murder of Linda Reaves and the shooting with intent to kill her boyfriend, Doug Ivens, whose estranged wife was dating Petitioner. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to death on the first conviction and life imprisonment on the second. After the denial of his direct appeal, Stouffer v. State, 738 P.2d 1349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (Stouffer I), modified in part, Stouffer v. State, 742 P.2d 562 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (Stouffer II), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1036 (1988), Petitioner unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief, Stouffer v. State, 817 P.2d 1275 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991) (Stouffer III), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 965 (1992), raising and exhausting many of the issues presented here. He then filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for habeas corpus relief in federal court positing an array of issues, only six of which are preserved for our review. Pivotal to them is whether Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel during the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. Because the record does not satisfactorily answer this question, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to plumb the depths of Petitioners Sixth Amendment argument. However, despite our inability to piece together the record, which is most hampered in assessing counsels performance during the penalty phase, we accept the district courts Conclusion the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals properly reweighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances after finding no evidence of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator in Stouffer II. We, therefore, vacate the district courts order dismissing the § 2254 petition and remand for the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Petitioners Sixth Amendment claims.