James Stephen Richardson v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2004-389

Filed: Jan. 12, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: James Stephen Richardson

Summary

James Stephen Richardson appealed his conviction for Robbery By Force. His conviction and sentence were twenty years in prison and a $1500 fine. Judge A. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there ineffective assistance of counsel due to failing to challenge jurors for cause?
• Did counsel fail to challenge the identification procedures used in the case?
• Was there ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to obtain relevant exculpatory evidence?
• Did the failure to investigate jail policy regarding clothing prejudicially affect Richardson's defense?
• Should the case be reversed and remanded for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel?

Findings

• the court erred in failing to provide effective assistance of counsel
• the failure to challenge jurors was not a basis for relief
• the failure to challenge identification procedures was not addressed
• evidence was not sufficient due to ineffective assistance of counsel regarding exculpatory evidence
• the judgment and sentence was reversed and remanded for a new trial

F-2004-389

Jan. 12, 2006

James Stephen Richardson

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, PRESIDING JUDGE: James Stephen Richardson was tried by jury and convicted of Robbery By Force, After Former Conviction of Two Felonies, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, §§ 792-800, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2003-4184. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Gordon D. McAllister, Jr., sentenced Richardson to twenty (20) years imprisonment and a $1500 fine. Richardson appealed his conviction and his sentence. Richardson has raised the following proposition of error:

I. COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE:
A. COUNSEL FAILED TO CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE JUROR
B. COUNSEL FAILED TO CHALLENGE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
C. COUNSEL FAILED TO OBTAIN RELEVANT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

On November 14, 2005, in accord with Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b), this Court remanded this case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on Richardson’s third claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.^1 In Proposition I, Part C, Richardson has alleged ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to discover and use exculpatory evidence relating to the David Moss Correctional Center’s policy that an inmate’s clothing may not be released with other personal property.^2 An evidentiary hearing was held on December 13, 2005, before the Honorable Gordon D. McAllister, Jr. On January 12, 2006, the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the remanded issue were filed in this Court. The district court’s findings include the following: (1) according to relevant jail policy at the time of trial, booking clothing could only be released when the Defendant was either released from jail or sent to the Department of Corrections, and that policy was available to trial counsel had he investigated; (2) trial counsel did not investigate to discover jail policy because he erroneously assumed that personal property and clothing were commingled and thus could be released to specified people; (3) trial counsel would have introduced this evidence had he known about it; (4) the defendant would have been booked into jail with, but not necessarily wearing, the clothes he was arrested in because the Broken Arrow police would not have permitted a change of clothes; (5) defense counsel’s failure to investigate the jail policy in effect at the time of the booking and up to trial was not a reasonable decision based upon accurate information; and (6) had defense counsel admitted the jail policy into evidence at trial, his theory of defense based on misidentification would have been considerably strengthened.

The district court concluded that defense counsel failed to conduct a reasonable investigation regarding the clothing policy and that this failure cannot be accorded strategic status. The district court further concluded that [t]he failure to investigate and present this exculpatory evidence was prejudicial to James Richardson’s defense, and that if the policy had been presented to the jury and not countered by the State, the trial’s outcome would likely have been different. The district court concluded that Richardson had established prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court gives strong deference to the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, although this Court determines the ultimate issue whether trial counsel was ineffective.^3 This Court appreciates the district court’s prompt and able handling of this matter, both in holding the evidentiary hearing and reporting back to this Court. We have no reason to disagree with the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We likewise agree with that court’s conclusion^4 that Richardson has established prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his Proposition I, Part C, claim.^5 Hence this case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

After thorough consideration of the entire appellate record, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find that reversal is required and remand for new trial.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

DAVID PHILLIPS
PAULA J. ALFRED
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
423 SOUTH BOULDER AVENUE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

YVETTE HART
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
500 SOUTH DENVER
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103

ATTORNEY FOR STATE

WILLIAM R. HOLMES
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY FOR STATE
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: CHAPEL, P. J.
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
C. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR

^4 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
^5 Richardson’s Proposition I, Part A, claim is rendered moot by today’s decision. We do not address and need not today resolve his Proposition I, Part B, claim.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2003).
2. We summarized the case against Richardson in our Order Supplementing the Record and Remanding for Evidentiary Hearing. We also summarized the controversy at trial regarding the Yankees t-shirt that both victims described their white male assailant as wearing, and that an arresting officer described Richardson as wearing at the time of his arrest, but that does not show up in the photographs taken of Richardson's clothing at the booking center.
3. Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b)(iv), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2003).
4. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
5. Richardson's Proposition I, Part A, claim is rendered moot by today's decision. We do not address and need not today resolve his Proposition I, Part B, claim.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 792-800 - Robbery By Force
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.11 - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

No case citations found.