In a ruling October 7, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals struck down Shaun Bosse’s latest attempt for post- conviction relief for first degree murder and death sentence.
It is the third time the court has upheld the conviction and sentence.
Bosse brutally murdered a Dibble woman and her two young children in 2010 and set their mobile home ablaze to cover up a theft.
A McClain County jury returned guilty verdicts on three counts of first-degree murder and arson in 2012.
Jurors recommended death for each of the three murders and 35 years plus a $25,000 fine for the arson.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal and also denied Bosse’s first application for post-conviction relief in 2015.
The convictions and sentences became final in March 2018. In February 2019, Bosse filed his second application for post-conviction relief.
In that application, Bosse argued the state had no jurisdiction because the victims were Indian and the crime occurred in Indian country.
Bosse also alleged his attorneys at trial were ineffective, saying they failed to adequately investigate his life history, failed to adequately prepare witnesses, and deprived him of a “fair and reliable” sentencing.
He also charged that these errors deprived him of his constitutional rights to due process.
“We have said many times that the post-conviction process is not intended to provide a second appeal,” the decision states. “The statutes governing our review of second or successive capital post-conviction applications provide even fewer grounds to collateral attack a judgment and sentence than the narrow grounds permitted in an original post-conviction proceeding.”
Bosse claimed the state lacked jurisdiction due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020.
However, the OCCA disagreed, stating “... no post-conviction relief should be granted. ... Mr. Bosse’s sentences were final in 2018, long before the Supreme Court decided McGirt in July 2020.”
Bosse’s allegation that his attorneys were “dysfunctional” also failed the court’s test of time.
The claim “could have been raised in earlier proceedings,” the OCCA decision reads. “This challenge to trial counsel’s effectiveness on the factual basis now asserted is procedurally barred.”
In addressing his third grounds for relief based on cumulative error, the judges again denied it.
The ruling states “we do not review or consider errors raised or decided in previous proceedings in a successive post-conviction application.”