Burkhalter v. Patton
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell ; denying certificate of appealability; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing 15 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254); finding as moot 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254) (Re: 15 Amended PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2254 ) (SAS, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JERMAINE MENDEZ BURKHALTER,
Petitioner,
vs.
ROBERT PATTON, ODOC Director,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-CV-685-JED-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus action. On January 9, 2015, Respondent filed a
motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) for failure to exhaust state remedies. By Opinion and Order filed June
9, 2015 (Doc. 13), as amended on June 10, 2015 (Doc. 14), the Court determined that the petition
is a “mixed petition,” subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The Court
provided Petitioner the opportunity to file an amended petition containing only his exhausted claims
and deleting his unexhausted claims. On June 26, 2015, Petitioner filed an amended petition (Doc.
15), along with a supporting brief (Doc. 16). For factual support of the claims raised in the amended
petition, Petitioner directs the Court to his supporting brief. See Doc. 15.
Because the amended petition replaces and supersedes the original petition, the original
petition shall be declared moot. However, upon review of the amended petition and supporting
brief, the Court finds that the amended petition remains a “mixed petition.” Petitioner failed to
delete his unexhausted claims as directed by the Court. Therefore, as discussed in more detail
below, Respondent’s motion to dismiss shall be granted and the amended petition shall be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
As a preliminary matter, the Court hereby incorporates the “Background” section of the prior
Opinion and Order, as amended (Doc. 14).
ANALYSIS
In the habeas corpus context, the United States Supreme Court “has long held that a state
prisoner’s federal petition should be dismissed if the prisoner has not exhausted available state
remedies as to any of his federal claims.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). The exhaustion requirement is based on the doctrine of comity. Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982). Requiring exhaustion “serves to minimize friction between
our federal and state systems of justice by allowing the State an initial opportunity to pass upon and
correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights.” Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981)
(per curiam).
In order to exhaust a claim, the applicant “must ‘fairly present’ his claim in each appropriate
state court . . . , thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541
U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995) (per curiam)); see
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (explaining that the exhaustion requirement
dictates that a § 2254 petitioner “must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any
constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review
process,” including discretionary review by the State’s highest court). “The exhaustion requirement
is satisfied if the issues have been properly presented to the highest state court, either by direct
review of the conviction or in a postconviction attack.” Brown v. Shanks, 185 F.3d 1122, 1124 (10th
Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Here, upon review of the record, including the briefs filed by Petitioner and the State on
direct appeal, the Court finds that, within each of his habeas claims, as raised in his brief in support
of his amended petition (Doc. 16), Petitioner continues to raise additional claims that have not been
presented to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”). While containing slight
formatting differences, including the addition of subheadings for grounds 1, 2, and 3, copied by
Petitioner from his direct appeal brief and randomly inserted in his habeas supporting brief, the brief
in support of the amended petition is nearly identical to the brief in support of the original petition.
Even though the headings for the five habeas grounds of error match the headings for the five
propositions of error presented to the OCCA on direct appeal, Petitioner expands his factual
allegations and legal arguments within each ground of the brief in support of the amended petition.
In addition, within the “Statement of the Facts” section of his brief in support of his amended
petition, Petitioner raises, as he did in his brief in support of his original petition, unexhausted claims
that he was denied his right to “conflict free counsel,” appellate counsel provided ineffective
assistance in failing to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, he is
“actually innocent,” the prosecution “suppressed documents,” and he was denied a defense expert
witness. See Doc. 16 at 3.
As his first proposition of error on direct appeal, Petitioner alleged that other crimes
evidence, in the form of testimony by the victim’s aunt, Altisha Boyd, was improperly admitted at
trial. See Doc. 11-2 at 16-26. In contrast, in his first habeas ground of error raised in the brief in
support of the amended petition, Petitioner claims that he was denied expert witness testimony to
show that the victim “live[d] in a make believe world and suffered from abnormal behavior.” See
3
Doc. 16 at 4. He also continues to complain that “the jury could permissibly infer from James’1
testimony regarding the prior molestation that petitioner had the propensity to engage in sexual
conduct with adolescent males.” Id. Further, he complains that defense counsel was unprepared,
failed to comply with discovery, failed to present material evidence, failed to show that the victim’s
testimony was distorted and marked by fantasy, failed to interview alibi witnesses, failed to know
the sentencing range for one of the charged crimes, and failed to subject the prosecution’s case to
meaningful adversarial process. Id. at 7. In subpart 2 of Ground 1, Petitioner alleges that the State
failed to present evidence corroborating the victim’s testimony in violation of his Sixth Amendment
rights, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy by the prosecutor’s introduction of evidence of
the same events and transactions in support of multiple counts. Id. at 7-9. Other than the
subheadings contained within the first ground of error, none of the claims raised in the text of the
first amended habeas ground of error has been presented to the OCCA. Compare Doc. 16 at 4-10
with Doc. 11-2 at 16-26.
As his second proposition of error on direct appeal, Petitioner alleged that the prosecutor
engaged in misconduct when he improperly vouched for the State’s witnesses during voir dire,
improperly elicited sympathy for the victim during closing argument, and improperly accused
defense counsel of wrongdoing during voir dire and closing argument. See Doc. 11-2 at 27-36. In
contrast, as his second habeas ground of error raised in the brief in support of the amended petition,
Petitioner continues to allege that prosecutorial misconduct occurred when Ms. Rose Turner, a social
worker, was not qualified as an expert witness. (Doc. 16 at 10). He also complains that the OCCA
cited “the wrong standards for reviewing his [claim].” Id. at 11. Petitioner also references, without
1
The Court is unable to identify an individual named “James” in the record provided to date.
4
a comprehendible explanation, a Brady2 violation. Id. at 11-13. Other than the subheadings
contained within the second ground of error, none of the claims raised in the text of the second
amended habeas ground of error has been presented to the OCCA. Compare Doc. 16 at 10-14 with
Doc. 11-2 at 27-36.
As his third proposition of error on direct appeal, Petitioner claimed that trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance when he failed to object to the prosecutor’s improper vouching for
the State’s witnesses and his improper elicitation of sympathy for the victim. (Doc. 11-2 at 38).
Petitioner also alleged that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to move for
a mistrial following the testimony of Altisha Boyd. Id. at 40. The claim of ineffective assistance
of trial counsel raised in the brief in support of the amended petition is entirely different and
includes claims that have not been presented to the OCCA. Here, Petitioner alleges that trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance when he failed to request a Franks3 hearing on the “credibility to the
charges in the warrant information and the affidavit.” (Doc. 16 at 14). Petitioner also alleges that
“counsel failed to present testimony from the expert witness to show that [the victim’s] statements
and account of events was [sic] a product of her prior abuse, before Mr. Burkhalter’s [sic] obtained
custody, that she suffered greatly under an [sic] delusion (psychotic fantasy of sexual intent or
nature), [for] which she was receiving medical care.” Id. at 15. Other than the subheadings
contained within the third ground of error, none of the claims raised in the text of the third amended
2
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (holding that “the suppression by the prosecution of
evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material
either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution”).
3
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978) (holding that a criminal defendant may
challenge a facially sufficient affidavit for a search warrant on the ground that the police knowingly,
intentionally or recklessly included false information).
5
habeas ground of error has been presented to the OCCA. Compare Doc. 16 at 14-17 with Doc. 11-2
at 37-43.
As his fourth proposition of error on direct appeal, Petitioner alleged that his sentences are
“grossly excessive” and “should shock the conscience” of the appellate court. (Doc. 11-2 at 44).
In contrast, in his brief in support of his amended petition, Petitioner claims that what is shocking
to the conscience is that the trial court allowed multiple separate counts for “a single alleged
conduct.” (Doc. 16 at 18). Petitioner also alleges that his punishment under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §
51.1, violated the legislative intent of the statute as well as equal protection of the laws. Id. None
of the claims raised in the text of the fourth amended habeas ground of error has been presented to
the OCCA. Compare Doc. 16 at 17-18 with Doc. 11-2 at 44-52.
As his fifth proposition of error on direct appeal, Petitioner alleged that the cumulative effect
of the errors identified in the direct appeal brief deprived him of a fair trial. (Doc. 11-2 at 53). In
his brief in support of his amended petition, Petitioner also complains of cumulative error, but offers
a completely different list of trial errors giving rise to cumulative error. (Doc. 16 at 18-21). The
claim raised in the text of the fifth amended habeas ground of error has not been presented to the
OCCA. Compare Doc. 16 at 18-21 with Doc. 11-2 at 53-54.
In summary, none of the claims contained in the text of Petitioner’s brief in support of his
amended habeas petition has been presented to the OCCA. Therefore, those claims are unexhausted
and the amended petition is a “mixed petition.” The Court notes that, under the facts of this case
and contrary to Petitioner’s argument asserted in response to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 12),
requiring exhaustion may not be futile because Petitioner has an available remedy for his
6
unexhausted claims: an application for post-conviction relief filed in Tulsa County District Court,
Case No. CF-2009-3618. Therefore, the futility exception does not apply.
Because Petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s directive to delete his unexhausted
claims resulting in the amended petition being a “mixed petition,” the Court shall grant
Respondent’s motion to dismiss. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be dismissed
without prejudice.
Certificate of Appealability
A petitioner seeking relief under § 2254 is required to obtain a certificate of appealability
(COA) to appeal a final order. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to 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 “indicates which specific issue or issues satisfy [that]
showing.” A petitioner can satisfy that standard by demonstrating that the issues raised are
debatable among jurists, that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions
deserve further proceedings. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (citing Barefoot v.
Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). In addition, when the Court’s ruling is based on procedural
grounds, Petitioner must demonstrate that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at
484.
In this case, the Court concludes that a certificate of appealability should not issue.
Petitioner cannot satisfy the second prong of the required showing, i.e., that the Court’s ruling
resulting in the dismissal of the amended petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies is
7
debatable or incorrect. The record is devoid of any authority suggesting that the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals would resolve this matter differently. A certificate of appealability shall be denied.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
The original petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is declared moot.
2.
Petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s directive to delete his unexhausted claims as
raised in his brief in support of the amended petition (Doc. 16).
3.
Petitioner’s amended petition (Doc. 15), citing the brief in support (Doc. 16), is a “mixed
petition,” containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims.
4.
Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is granted.
5.
The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 15) is dismissed without prejudice
for failure to exhaust available state remedies.
6.
A certificate of appealability is denied.
7.
A separate judgment shall be entered in favor of Respondent.
ORDERED THIS 15th day of July, 2015.
8
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?