Jimenez v. Patton

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 11 Report and Recommendation, The Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 3/22/17. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL LEE JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT PATTON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-1087-R

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Shon Erwin [Doc. 11] entered June 23, 2016, and Petitioner’s Objection to Report
and Recommendation [Doc. 12] filed July 13, 2016. The Magistrate Judge found that each
of Petitioner’s five grounds for habeas relief lacked merit. Magistrate Judge Erwin thus
recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Court reviews the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge de novo in light of Petitioner’s objections. To
conduct that de novo review, the Court has carefully reviewed the entire record. The Court
fully concurs in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ adjudication of each of the claims that
Petitioner raises in his habeas petition neither conflicted with nor involved an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United Supreme States
Supreme Court.
1

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that neither the admission of prior
testimony from a co-defendant nor the admission of testimony from the state medical
examiner violated the Petitioner’s right to confront his accuser under the Sixth
Amendment; that the prosecution’s comments did not infect the trial with unfairness as to
make Petitioner’s conviction a denial of due process; that the prosecution did not withhold
material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland1; and that Petitioner’s counsel did not
represent Petitioner in a manner that constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under
Strickland v. Washington.2 The Magistrate Judge correctly found that none of these
determinations involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent and that
because there were no errors in the proceedings, Petitioner’s cumulative-error claim lacked
merit.
In his Objection, Petitioner raises four arguments. The first two—reiterations of his
Confrontation Clause arguments—were correctly analyzed by the Magistrate Judge. He
does appear, however, to make a new argument: that he did not have the opportunity to
fully cross-examine his co-defendant during the preliminary hearing because his counsel
was able to rely on only the charging instrument during cross-examination—rather than
the full record that had developed by the time of trial. But to find that this violates the
Confrontation Clause would be to ignore Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 57 (2004) (noting that “prior trial or preliminary hearing

1
373 U.S. 83 (1963).
2
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

2

testimony is admissible” so long as the “defendant had an adequate opportunity to crossexamine”).
Petitioner contends that he was convicted with insufficient evidence. Yet a review
of the record demonstrates that this too lacks merit because Petitioner failed to show that,
based on the record, “no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979).
Finally, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, the undersigned denies Petitioner a Certificate of
Appealability. Where a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds, Petitioner is
entitled to a COA only if he/she demonstrates 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.” Stack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
When a habeas petition is denied on the merits, Petitioner is entitled to a COA only if
he/she demonstrates “that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s
resolution of his/her constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931, 944 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, supra).
Petitioner has not made either showing and is therefore not entitled to a COA.
The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge in its entirety. The Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is
DENIED.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22ndday of March 2017.

4