Hobbs v. State of Oklahoma
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - The Clerk shall note on the record the substitution of Joe M. Allbaugh, Director, in place of Robert C. Patton, Director, as party respondent. ; denying certificate of appealability; denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254) (RGG, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILLIAM TAYLOR HOBBS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
JOE M. ALLBAUGH, Director,1
Respondent.
Case No. 13-CV-0815-CVE-TLW
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the petition for habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1), filed by Petitioner William
Taylor Hobbs, a state prisoner appearing pro se. Respondent filed a response (Dkt. # 10) and
provided the state court records (Dkt. ## 10, 11) necessary for adjudication of Petitioner’s claims.
Petitioner filed a reply to the response (Dkt. # 12). For the reasons discussed below, the petition for
writ of habeas corpus shall be denied.
BACKGROUND
On April 12, 2010, Petitioner entered pleas of guilty in Ottawa County District Court, Case
No. CF-2010-84B, to Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) (Count
1), Possession of Controlled Drug (Count 2), and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count
3). See Dkt. # 11-5, O.R. at 19. That same day, Petitioner also entered pleas of guilty in Ottawa
County District Court, Case No. CF-2010-85, to Manufacture of Controlled Dangerous Substance
(Methamphetamine) (Count 1), Possession of Marijuana (Count 2), and Unlawful Possession of
1
Petitioner’s most recent address reflects that he is in custody at a private prison in
Oklahoma. See Dkt. # 14. Under Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the proper party
respondent is Joe M. Allbaugh, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Therefore,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25, Joe M. Allbaugh, Director, shall be substituted for Robert C. Patton,
Director, as the proper party respondent in this action. The Clerk shall note the substitution on the
record.
Paraphernalia (Count 3). Id. A Supplemental Information informed the trial court that Petitioner
had least five (5) prior felony convictions. Id. at 3-4. Petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement providing that Petitioner would be allowed to participate in the Ottawa County Drug
Court Program. The agreement set forth the sentence Petitioner would received if he successfully
completed the program and the sentence he would receive if he failed to complete the program.
When Petitioner entered his guilty pleas, he acknowledged that he understood the terms of the plea
agreement and his possible sentences. During entry of his pleas, Petitioner was represented by
attorney J. Ken Gallon.
On June 9, 2010, the State filed an application to terminate Petitioner’s participation in the
Drug Court Program based on Petitioner’s expulsion from a drug rehabilitation facility.2 See Dkt.
# 11-5, O.R. at 27. Pursuant to a minute order, filed July 23, 2010, the trial judge denied the motion,
but Petitioner received a sanction of 15 days in jail. See Dkt. # 10-3 at 2; Dkt. # 11-5, O.R. at 46.
On November 30, 2010, the State filed a second application to terminate Petitioner’s
participation in the Drug Court program based on Petitioner’s unauthorized departure from a drug
rehabilitation facility. See Dkt. # 11-5, O.R. at 47-49. Petitioner was eventually arrested in San
Diego, California, and returned to Oklahoma. See Dkt. # 10-3 at 2. On April 15, 2011, the trial
judge granted the State’s second application and terminated Petitioner from the Drug Court Program.
Id. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Petitioner was sentenced in Case No. CF-2010-84B to life
imprisonment on Count 1, and Counts 2 and 3 were dismissed. See Dkt. # 11-5, O.R. at 64-65. In
Case No. CF-2010-85, Petitioner received a sentence of life imprisonment on Count 1, to run
2
Petitioner had previously received a sanction of 10 days in jail for being expelled from a
drug rehabilitation facility, a violation of the terms and conditions of the Drug Court Program.
2
concurrently with the life sentence in CF-2010-84B, fines on Count 2, and Count 3 was dismissed.
Id.
Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Id. at 66. After the motion was
denied, see id. at 77, Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
(OCCA). Represented by attorney Lisbeth L. McCarty from the Oklahoma Indigent Defense
System, Petitioner raised two grounds of error, as follows:
Proposition 1: The trial judge lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion to terminate Appellant
from Drug Court because Appellant successfully completed the program.
Proposition 2: The trial judge abused his discretion by failing to consider the adequacy of
further disciplinary sanctions.
See Dkt. # 10-1. On November 28, 2012, in Case No. F-2011-309, the OCCA affirmed the district
court’s ruling terminating Petitioner from the Drug Court Program. See, Dkt. # 10-3.
On February 11, 2013, Petitioner filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief (Dkt.
# 10-4), raising two propositions of error, as follows:
Proposition 1: Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise issue of plea
was not voluntary.
Proposition 2: Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise excessive
sentence claim.
Id. at 2, 4. On March 22, 2013, the state district judge denied the application. See Dkt. # 10-5.
Petitioner appealed. On June 20, 2013, in Case No. PC-2013-0336, the OCCA affirmed the denial
of post-conviction relief. See Dkt. # 10-7.
On December 23, 2013, Petitioner filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt.
# 1). Petitioner identifies two (2) grounds of error, as follows:
Ground 1:
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise issue that plea
was not voluntary.
3
Ground 2:
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise issue of
excessive sentence.
Id. In response to the petition, Respondent argues that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (Dkt. # 10).
ANALYSIS
A.
Exhaustion/Evidentiary Hearing
As a preliminary matter, the Court must determine whether Petitioner meets the exhaustion
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). Petitioner
presented his habeas claims to the OCCA on post-conviction appeal. Therefore, the exhaustion
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) is satisfied.
In addition, the Court finds Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Cullen
v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 184-85 (2011); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000).
B.
Standards of review
The OCCA adjudicated Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on
post-conviction appeal. Therefore, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA), Petitioner may obtain federal habeas relief only if the state court decision “was contrary
to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts
in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d);
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102-03 (2011); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 386 (2000);
Neill v. Gibson, 278 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (10th Cir. 2001). “Clearly established Federal law for
purposes of § 2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme
Court’s] decisions.” White v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014) (citations omitted).
4
When a state court applies the correct federal law to deny relief, a federal habeas court may
consider only whether the state court applied the federal law in an objectively reasonable manner.
See Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 699 (2002); Hooper v. Mullin, 314 F.3d 1162, 1169 (10th Cir.
2002). An unreasonable application by the state courts is “not merely wrong; even ‘clear error’ will
not suffice.” White, 134 S. Ct. at 1702 (citation omitted). The petitioner “must show that the state
court’s ruling . . . was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and
comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Id. (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted); see Metrish v. Lancaster, 133 S. Ct. 1781, 1787 (2013).
To be entitled to habeas corpus relief, Petitioner demonstrate that the OCCA’s adjudication
of his claims was an unreasonable application of the two-pronged standard announced in Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Under Strickland, a defendant must show that (1) his counsel’s
performance was deficient and that (2) the deficient performance was prejudicial. Id. at 687. When
a habeas petitioner alleges that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to
raise an issue on direct appeal, the Court first examines the merits of the omitted issue. Cargle v.
Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196, 1202 (10th Cir. 2003); Hawkins v. Hannigan, 185 F.3d 1146, 1152 (10th Cir.
1999); Parker v. Champion, 148 F.3d 1219, 1221 (10th Cir. 1998). The Tenth Circuit has
consistently held that “[w]hile counsel should not omit ‘plainly meritorious’ claims, counsel need
not raise meritless issues.” Smith v. Workman, 550 F.3d 1258, 1268 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation
omitted). To prevail, a petitioner must “show an ‘objectively unreasonable’ decision by the
appellate counsel as well as a ‘reasonable probability that the omitted claim would have resulted in
relief.’” Id. (citation omitted). This Court’s review of the OCCA’s decision on ineffective
assistance of counsel claims is “doubly deferential.” Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 190 (noting that a
5
habeas court must take a “highly deferential” look at counsel’s performance under Strickland and
through the “deferential” lens of § 2254(d)).
1. Appellate counsel’s failure to challenge voluntariness of plea (Ground 1)
As his first proposition of error, Petitioner complains that appellate counsel provided
ineffective assistance in failing to challenge the voluntariness of Petitioner’s guilty pleas. See Dkt.
# 1 at 4-5. Petitioner claims that his trial counsel, J. Ken Gallon, “solicited and coerced me into
signing for the Ottawa County Drug Court Program by saying I would be put away for a long time
if I didn’t sign immediately. I told him I was withdrawing from years of drug abuse and wanted to
think about my decision because I was not in the right frame of mind, but he said no.” Id. The
OCCA denied relief on this claim, finding that Petitioner could not satisfy the prejudice prong of
the Strickland standard. See Dkt. # 10-7 at 4.
In Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), the Supreme Court held that a guilty plea must
be entered into knowingly and voluntarily. To enter a plea that is knowing and voluntary, the
defendant must have “a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.” See
United States v. Hurlich, 293 F.3d 1223, 1230 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244).
A plea is not voluntary unless the defendant knows the direct consequences of his decision,
including the maximum penalty to which he will be exposed. Worthen v. Meachum, 842 F.2d 1179,
1182 (10th Cir. 1988) (stating that critical inquiry is whether defendant knows of maximum possible
sentence), overruled on other grounds by Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991). Furthermore,
it is not necessary that the record reflect a detailed enumeration and waiver of rights as a result of
the guilty plea; rather the issue is simply whether the record affirmatively shows that the guilty plea
was intelligent and voluntary. Stinson v. Turner, 473 F.2d 913, 916 (10th Cir. 1973). “Whether a
6
plea is voluntary is a question of federal law, but this legal conclusion rests on factual findings and
inferences from those findings.” Fields v. Gibson, 277 F.3d 1203, 1212 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing
Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 35 (1992)). The “determination of a factual issue made by a State court
shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption
of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).
A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must overcome the strong
presumption of reliability accorded a defendant’s in-court statements made when the plea was
entered concerning the voluntariness of the plea and his satisfaction with his attorney’s performance.
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1977). “Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong
presumption of verity. The subsequent presentation of conclusory allegations unsupported by
specifics is subject to summary dismissal, as are contentions that in the face of the record are wholly
incredible.” Id. at 74.
In this case, the record belies Petitioner’s claim that he was coerced into entering his guilty
pleas. On April 12, 2010, at the change of plea hearing, Petitioner stated that he was entering the
guilty pleas freely and voluntarily and that no one had threatened, promised, or otherwise coerced
him into changing his pleas. See Dkt. # 11-1, Tr. Plea Hr’g at 5. Petitioner confirmed that he had
been accepted into the Drug Court Program. Id. at 8. Petitioner stated that he understood the terms
of his plea agreement: if he completed the Drug Court Program, he would receive suspended
sentences; if he failed to complete the program, he would be sentenced as provided in the second
part of the agreement. Id. at 9-10. Petitioner also confirmed that he understood the strict conditions
of the Drug Court Program. Id. at 9. The trial judge warned Petitioner repeatedly that his plea
agreement was “a good deal if you make it; absolutely a horrible deal if you don’t.” Id. at 14, 16.
7
Also, the trial judge emphasized that “[if] you run, you’re done.” Id. at 12. After hearing the
judge’s admonishments, Petitioner affirmed his decision to enter the Drug Court Program. Id. at 16.
The trial judge concluded the hearing by continuing Petitioner’s sentencing for a period of two
years, the length of time Petitioner would be in the program without either graduating or being
terminated. Id. In a court minute, filed April 13, 2010, the state district judge made a finding of fact
that Petitioner’s guilty pleas were “knowingly and voluntarily entered.” See Dkt. # 11-5, O.R. at
19.
Petitioner’s allegation of duress resulting from defense counsel’s advice to sign the guilty
plea papers “immediately” is contradicted by Petitioner’s averment, made under oath, that he had
discussed the pleas with his attorney and that his decision to plead guilty was voluntary. See Dkt.
# 11-1, Tr. Plea Hr’g at 5. Because Petitioner’s unsupported claim that he entered pleas of guilty
under duress is contradicted by the record, Petitioner cannot satisfy either prong of Strickland.
Appellate counsel did not perform deficiently in failing to challenge the voluntariness of Petitioner’s
guilty pleas and the result of the appeal would not have been different had appellate counsel raised
the claim. Furthermore, the state district judge’s determination that Petitioner’s guilty pleas were
made knowingly and voluntarily is entitled to a presumption of correctness. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(e)(1). Petitioner has failed to rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence. Id.
The OCCA’s adjudication of this claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not
contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the
Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Habeas corpus relief is denied as to Ground 1.
8
2. Appellate counsel’s failure to challenge excessiveness of sentences (Ground 2)
As his second ground of error, Petitioner claims that appellate counsel provided ineffective
in failing to argue that his sentences are excessive. See Dkt. # 1 at 6. Petitioner states “[t]his
sentence is excessive, where neither loss of life nor injury has occurred, and I believe that it will
shock the conscience of the Court.” Id. Petitioner claims that he wrote to appellate counsel
“numerous times about the excessiveness of this sentence, all to no avail, she ignored me and filed
two bogus petitions, that got denied on direct appeal.” Id. In resolving this claim on post-conviction
appeal, the OCCA found that Petitioner could not satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland
standard. See Dkt. # 10-7 at 4.
The OCCA has consistently held that where the punishment is within the statutory limits,
the sentence will not be modified unless under all the facts and circumstances of the case it is so
excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. See, e.g., Freeman v. State, 876 P.2d 283, 291
(Okla. Crim. App. 1994). In light of Petitioner’s history of at least 5 prior felony convictions,
Petitioner’s sentences were within statutory limits. See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1(C). Therefore,
under the facts of this case, even if appellate counsel had raised this claim on direct appeal,
Petitioner cannot demonstrate that the result of his appeal would have been different. Because
Petitioner cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland, his claim of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel is meritless. For that reason, the OCCA’s adjudication of this claim of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly
established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Habeas corpus relief is denied on
Ground 2.
9
C.
Certificate of Appealability
Pursuant to Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final
order adverse to the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the Court may issue a certificate of
appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right” and the Court “indicate[s] which specific issue or issues satisfy [that] showing.” A petitioner
can satisfy that standard by demonstrating that the issues raised are debatable among jurists, a court
could resolve the issues differently, or the questions deserve further proceedings. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (citation omitted).
After considering the record in this case, the Court concludes that a certificate of
appealability should not issue. Nothing suggests the Tenth Circuit would conclude that this Court’s
application of AEDPA standards to the decision by the OCCA was debatable amongst jurists of
reason. See Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 937-38 (10th Cir. 2004). The record is devoid of any
authority suggesting the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals would resolve the issues in this case
differently. A certificate of appealability is denied.
CONCLUSION
After careful review of the record, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not established that
he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Therefore, the petition
for writ of habeas corpus shall be denied.
10
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that,
1.
The Clerk shall note on the record the substitution of Joe M. Allbaugh, Director, in place of
Robert C. Patton, Director, as party respondent.
2.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) is denied.
3.
A certificate of appealability is denied.
4.
A separate judgment shall be entered in this matter.
DATED this 3rd day of January, 2017.
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?