Williams v. Addison

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED as moot, and this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED. Furthermore, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

KORY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
CARL BEAR, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV 13-101-RAW-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1). Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated at Joseph
Harp Correctional Center in Lexington, Oklahoma, attacks his sentences following blind
pleas of no contest in Muskogee County District Court Case No. CF-2007-204.
The respondent alleges in his response (Dkt. 6) that the petition is moot, because
Petitioner received relief on his pleas when the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vacated
his Judgment and Sentence and remanded the case to the district court in Williams v. State,
C-2008-1183, slip op. at 4-5 (Okla. Crim. App. Feb. 4, 2010) (Dkt. 6-1). Petitioner has not
filed a reply to the respondent’s response.
The record shows that Petitioner entered blind pleas in Case No. CF-2007-204 to
Shooting with Intent to Kill (Count 1), Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count
2), Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony (Count 3), Possession of a SawedOff Shotgun (Count 4), and Receiving or Concealing Stolen Property (Count 5). Williams,
C-2008-1183, slip op. at 1 (Dkt. 6-1). After the remand, he was tried by jury and convicted

of Counts 1-3, and those proceedings were affirmed in Williams v. Oklahoma, No. F-20101155 (Okla. Crim. App. Dec. 8, 2011) (Dkt. 6-2). The petition specifically refers to Counts
1-4, Petitioner’s blind pleas, and his plea summary, but it makes no mention of the jury trial.
The court agrees with the respondent that Petitioner received relief on his habeas
claims, and the petition is moot. In Hayes v. Evans, 70 F.3d 85, 86 (10th Cir. 1995), the state
court reversed a petitioner’s sentence and remanded the case for a new trial while his habeas
corpus petition was pending. Id. at 86. The Tenth Circuit noted that if “the district court had
addressed the merits of the petition before the state court ruled, the most relief Mr. Hayes
could have received would have been either the grant of a conditional writ or a review by the
district court of his federal challenges to his conviction and sentence.” Id. Because there
was no further relief the federal court could grant him on the conviction at issue in the
petition, the habeas action was moot. Id. See also Dubuc v. Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals, No. 96-5024, 1996 WL 384547, at *2 (10th Cir. 1996) (unpublished) (holding that
a habeas petition was moot, because “the Oklahoma court reversed [the] conviction and . .
. it no longer exists.”).
Here, the court finds the convictions and sentences Petitioner is challenging no longer
exist, so his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moot. The court further finds Petitioner
has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, a certificate of appealability cannot be issued.
ACCORDINGLY, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is
DENIED as moot, and this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED. Furthermore, Petitioner
is denied a certificate of appealability.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March 2016.

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2016.

J4h4i0

3