## Facts

- Gerardo Valdez, a Mexican national, was convicted of first-degree malice-aforethought murder in Grady County, Oklahoma, and sentenced to death.
- On direct appeal, the conviction and sentence were affirmed; further review was denied.
- Valdez pursued an initial state post-conviction application and federal habeas relief; both were denied.
- Oklahoma authorities did not timely inform Valdez of the right to consular notification and assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).
- After consular involvement occurred during post-conviction proceedings, the Mexican consulate helped develop and present new mitigation evidence, including expert mental-health evaluations indicating significant mental impairment relevant to culpability and punishment.
- The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board recommended clemency by a 3–1 vote, but the Governor denied clemency after temporary stays of execution.
- Valdez filed a second post-conviction application seeking sentencing relief, along with requests for discovery and an evidentiary hearing; the Government of Mexico participated as amicus curiae.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the execution pending resolution of the second post-conviction application.

## Issues

1. Whether a successive and otherwise untimely post-conviction application was procedurally barred under Oklahoma’s post-conviction limits, or could be considered to prevent a miscarriage of justice or a substantial violation of rights.
2. Whether the failure to provide consular-notification information required a judicial remedy in a capital case when belated consular assistance produced substantial new mitigation evidence.
3. Whether the newly developed mental-health mitigation rendered the death sentence unreliable such that resentencing was required.

## Decision

- The court granted post-conviction relief as to sentencing and remanded for resentencing in the district court.
- The court left the murder conviction intact and set aside only the death sentence.
- The court denied the request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing, resolving the application on the written submissions, affidavits, and proffers.
- The court recognized the treaty-based consular-notification problem and treated its practical effect—loss of timely mitigation development—as central to the sentencing-relief analysis.
- Separate opinions concurred in the result or concurred in part and dissented in part, reflecting disagreement over aspects of the analysis and the appropriateness of relief.

## Legal Principles

- In capital post-conviction proceedings, a court may grant relief when an error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, including at the penalty phase.
- Procedural limits on successive post-conviction applications may yield in extraordinary circumstances where enforcing a death sentence would be fundamentally unreliable.
- A consular-notification failure may support sentencing relief when it can be linked to the absence of material mitigation evidence that likely would have been developed and presented with timely consular assistance.
- Where new evidence affects punishment rather than guilt, the appropriate remedy may be resentencing rather than vacating the conviction.

## Conclusion

The court set aside Valdez’s death sentence and ordered resentencing because the combination of a consular-notification failure and substantial new mental-health mitigation created an unreliable capital sentencing outcome warranting post-conviction relief despite procedural obstacles.


Valdez v. State, 46 P.3d 703 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002)