ORDER RESPONDING TO STATE’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

¶1  On December 7, 2005, this Court remanded this post-conviction case for a jury trial on Murphy’s mental retardation claim.  Murphy v. State, 2005 OK CR 25,     P.3d    .  On January 9, 2006, the State filed a Motion for Clarification of that opinion.  This Court’s case law on the issue of mental retardation in capital cases, when read in its entirety is neither confusing nor in conflict.  Lambert v. State, 2003 OK CR 11, 71 P.3d 30, and Salazar v. State, 2004 OK CR 4, 84 P.3d 764, control in this post-conviction proceeding.  Regarding the State’s questions, this Court does not issue advisory opinions.  Canady v. Reynolds, 1994 OK CR 54, ¶ 9, 880 P.2d 391, 394; Matter of L.N., 1980 OK CR 72, ¶ 3, 617 P.2d 239, 240.

¶2  IT IS SO ORDERED.

¶3  WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT  this 20th day of January, 2006.

                                                /s/ Charles S. Chapel, Presiding Judge
                                                CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Presiding Judge

                                                  /s/ Gary L. Lumpkin, Vice Presiding Judge  CONCUR IN RESULT
                                                GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge

                                                /s/ Charles A. Johnson, Judge
                                                CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge

                                                /s/ Arlene Johnson, Judge
                                                ARLENE JOHNSON, Judge

                                                /s/ David B. Lewis, Judge
                                                DAVID B. LEWIS, Judge

ATTEST:

_______/s/ Clerk

Clerk