IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Filed November 14, 1997
No. PC 97-1370

STEPHEN LEE ALLEN,
Petitioner,

v.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondent.

ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF POST CONVICTION RELIEF

On October 8, 1997, Petitioner, through counsel, appealed from an order of the District Court of Washington Count, Case No. CRF-90-239, denying his application for post conviction relief.

Petitioner was tried by a jury and convicted of First Degree Murder in the District Court of Washington County and sentenced to life without parole, in Case No. CRF-90-239. Petitioner filed a direct appeal and his conviction was affirmed by this Court in an opinion issued October 28, 1993. (See Allen v. State, 862 P.2d 487 (Okl. Cr. 1993)). Therefore, all issues previously ruled upon by this Court are res judicata, and all issues not raised in Petitioner's previous applications which could have been raised, are waived.

The Post-Conviction Procedure Act is not intended as a means of providing a Petitioner with a second direct appeal. Fowler v. State, 896 P.2d 566, 569 (Okl. Cr. 1995). A claim which could have been raised on direct appeal, but was not is waived. Id., Fox v. State, 880 P.2d 383, 384-85 (Okl. Cr. 1994); Johnson v. State, 823 P.2d 370, 372 (Okl. Cr. 1991), cert. denied, __U.S.__, 112 S.Ct. 1984, 118 L.Ed.2d 582 (1992). Claims which were raised and addressed in previous appeals are barred as res judicata. Fowler, 896 P.2d at 569; Walker v. State, 826 P.2d 1002, 10045 (Okl. Cr. 1992), cert. denied, __U.S.__, 113 S.Ct. 280, 121 L.Ed.2d 308 (1992). We find this to be Petitioner's first application for post-conviction relief.

The District Court of Washington County, the Honorable John G. Lanning, denied Petitioner's application in an order issued September 9, 1997. In examining the six (6) propositions of error presented by Petitioner, Judge Lanning noted that Petitioner's claims were res judicata, having been specifically addressed on direct appeal, and could not be raised in Petitioner's post-conviction application. The district court determined that Petitioner was not entitled to relief and denied the application.

We agree. Petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to any relief in a post-conviction proceeding. The issues previously raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata and may not be raised again. Inasmuch as appellate counsel admits in Petitioner's brief that the issues raised in his application were raised on direct appeal, and addressed by this Court, we are puzzled by counsel's claim that we should now revisit theses issues.

As Petitioner has failed to show entitlement for relief in a post-conviction proceeding, the order of the District Court of Washington County denying Petitioner's application for post-conviction relief is AFFIRMED.

ITS IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 14th day of November, 1997.

/s/ CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Presiding Judge

/s/ RETA M. STRUBHAR, Vice Presiding Judge

/s/ GARY L. LUMPKIN, Judge

/s/ JAMES F. LANE, Judge

/s/ CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge

lh 2000