the sentence") cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 130 S.Ct. 190, 175 L.Ed.2d 118 (2009); Jones v. Page, 76 F.3d 831, 846 (7th Cir.1996) (finding that counsel's failure to introduce evidence of petitioner's drug abuse was reasonable strategic choice because such evidence was "double-edged sword"). 5. Jury Notes 4 38 Smith claims his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court judge replied to two jury notes without counsel being present. Smith acknowledges that this claim was raised and decided in his direct appeal. He requests, however, that we reconsider our disposition of this claim in the interest of justice. We find no miscarriage of justice in our previous disposition of this issue. This claim is denied. See Clayton v. State, 1995 OK CR 3, 13, 892 P.2d 646, 650 (<HOLDING>). 6. Cumulative Error {389 Smith requests that
holding that any claim that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal is barred from review on post conviction under the doctrine of res judicata holding that issues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred by res judicata from further consideration on petition for postconviction relief holding that claims raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from consideration in a rule 3850 motion holding that a habeas claim is procedurally barred where it was already raised on direct appeal and decided on the merits by this court holding that postconviction relief claims which either were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal were properly denied without an evidentiary hearing