Capital Sentence Affirmed; IAC Claims Rejected

Boltz v. Mullin, 2005 WL 1766379 (7/27/05) - Another death sentence in Oklahoma affirmed in a habeas case. For the most part the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was not prejudicial because of the substantial evidence the defendant killed the son of his estranged wife with premeditation, given his threats that he would do what he did, his bragging about killing others, the defendant's admissions and the heinous nature of the decapitation. Other attorney conduct was reasonable strategy given the weakness of the evidence the defendant believed counsel should have presented. Evidence of an unadjudicated crime may be introduced in the sentencing phase even if the evidence is not all that reliable. The jury could consider a nonviolent crime such as a burglary, along with other evidence of violence, to prove the defendant was a future risk to society. Callousness is not necessarily an improper basis for the death penalty because it's not clearly established every first degree murder is callous. There was sufficient evidence the defendant was a continuing threat to society. Evidence of the defendant's clear intent to kill supported the state court's finding that there was insufficient evidence to justify a heat of passion lesser included instruction, although there was evidence the defendant was angry at his wife for leaving him.