Date: 04-16-2025

Case Style: MiCA Alexander Martinez v. Christe Quick

Case Number: 16-CV-1278

Judge: Not Available

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

"An Oklahoma jury convicted Mica Martinez of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. He now seeks federal habeas relief, contending that (1) his appellate counsel ineffectively chose not to raise a claim of trial counsel's ineffective investigation of and presentation of testimony from Martinez's grandfather, mother, and uncle; (2) his sentencing was rendered fundamentally unfair by witness testimony that Martinez had, at one time, used a racial slur; and (3) reversible cumulative error exists. We affirm the denial of relief on the ineffectiveness claim because the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law or rely on an unreasonable factual finding to hold that neither trial nor appellate counsel performed deficiently. We also affirm the denial of relief on the unfairness claim: Martinez points us to no clearly established federal law regarding the introduction of inflammatory evidence, and the OCCA did not base its decision on an unreasonable factual finding. Having found no error, we also affirm the denial of relief on cumulative error."

Outcome: Because the OCCA did not unreasonably apply Strickland or rely on an unreasonable factual finding when holding that neither trial nor appellate counsel performed deficiently, we affirm the district court's denial of relief on Martinez's IAC claim. We similarly affirm the district court's denial of relief on Martinez's claim that the introduction of a racial slur rendered his capital sentencing fundamentally unfair. Martinez points us to no clearly established federal law on this point, and the OCCA did not rely on an unreasonable factual finding. Last, because we've found no errors, we also affirm the denial of relief on cumulative error.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: