Mayfield v. Allbaugh

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 24 of Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; a certificate of appealability is also denied. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 10/23/2017. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CODY WAYNE MAYFIELD,
Petitioner,
vs.
JIMMY MARTIN,1
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-16-557-HE

ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 for relief from his state court conviction and sentence. The
matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Mitchell has issued a Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that the petition be denied. Petitioner has
filed an objection to the Report, which triggers a de novo review by this court.
A jury in Comanche County convicted Petitioner of two counts of possession of a
controlled substance after former conviction of two or more felonies and one count of
failure to stop at a red light. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the court
sentenced petitioner to two life sentences for the possession counts and ten days for the
traffic count and ordered all sentences to be served consecutively. Petitioner’s conviction

1

As Petitioner notes, the Warden of North Fork Correctional Center is now Jimmy Martin.
As such, he is now the correct Respondent. See Jimenez v. Utah, 665 F. App’x 657 n.2 (10th Cir.
2016).

and sentence on the second count of possession were reversed on appeal by the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) which ordered that count be dismissed and Petitioner
be resentenced.

The OCCA reviewed and rejected Petitioner’s remaining appellate

arguments. Petitioner was resentenced to one life sentence on the remaining possession
count and ten days on the traffic count. Petitioner did not file for post-conviction relief.
In his habeas petition, Petitioner lists seven grounds for relief, each of which was
raised on direct appeal. Because the OCCA addressed the merits of petitioner’s claims,
review is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

The Supreme Court has repeatedly

acknowledged that § 2254(d) “erects a formidable barrier to federal habeas relief for
prisoners whose claims have been adjudicated in state court.” Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. --,
134 S. Ct. 10, 16 (2013). Relief may only be granted “where there is no possibility
fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with this Court’s
precedents.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011). What is required is a showing
that the state court’s decision is “objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S.
63, 75 (2003) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409 (2000)).
Petitioner’s first objection2 argues that this court should not apply the §2254(d)
standard of review to his first, second, and fourth grounds for relief because “reasonable
jurists would find the assessment of Mr. Mayfield’s habeas claims debatable.” Doc. #25,
p. 3. Petitioner states that “the state court’s determination of the factual issues presented

Because Petitioner appears pro se, his pleadings are construed liberally. Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
2

2

with Grounds One, Two, and Four lacked justification because the errors were understood
and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement”
and thus he “effectively rebuts and overcomes the presumption that the OCCA’s
determination of the factual issues were correct by clear and convincing evidence.” Id.,
pp. 4-5.
The court disagrees. The formidable barrier presented when seeking habeas relief
“reflects the view that habeas corpus is a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state
criminal justice system, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal.”
Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102-103. “It is not enough that the state court decided an issue
contrary to a lower federal court’s conception of how the rule should be applied; the state
court decision must be ‘diametrically different’ and ‘mutually opposed’ to the Supreme
Court decision itself.” Bland v. Sirmons, 459 F.3d 999, 1009 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Williams, 529 U.S. at 406). The OCCA’s findings regarding these claims for relief are not
“objectively unreasonable.” Further, to the extent that Petitioner seeks relief for errors
violating state law and the Oklahoma constitution, “[s]tate claims are not cognizable in
habeas proceedings unless they are constitutional in nature.” Montoya v. State of N.M.,
55 F.3d 1496, 1499 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing Davis v. Reynolds, 890 F.2d 1105, 1109 n.3
(10th Cir. 1989).
Petitioner’s second objection states that “the Magistrate erred in [her] understanding
of the facts and thereby incorrectly applied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)” when evaluating his first
and second grounds for relief.

Petitioner’s first ground for relief claims that the

introduction of his “pen pack” during the sentencing phase of his trial, violated his Due
3

Process rights and resulted in an illegally enhanced sentence. This ground is a repetition
of his second proposition presented to the OCCA on direct appeal. His second ground for
relief claims that the introduction of a photograph of a piece of cellophane violated his
rights to a fair trial. This ground is presented as the fourth proposition on direct appeal to
the OCCA.
The Report finds “Petitioner cannot show the OCCA unreasonably applied federal
law when it found the irrelevant evidence did not render his second-stage trial
fundamentally unfair.” Doc. #24, p. 16. Likewise, “Petitioner fails to show the OCCA
unreasonably applied federal law when it held, in essence, the photograph did not render
Petitioner’s trial fundamentally unfair.” After de novo review, the court agrees with the
Report. The OCCA rulings are not an unreasonable application of federal law.
To the extent that Petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because his
sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant 21 Okla. Stat. § 51.1, the court notes that this
claim was not included in his habeas petition. Nor was it presented to the OCCA on direct
appeal. Accordingly, this claim is waived. If Petitioner objects to the Report’s disposition
of his seventh ground for relief, that his sentence was excessive, the court agrees with the
Report that a sentence within the statutory limits is not an unreasonable application of
federal law.
Petitioner’s final objection claims “the magistrate erred in [her] understanding of
the facts involved in Mr. Mayfield’s claim of ineffective assistance of Trial Counsel.
Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was the sixth proposition presented to
the OCCA on direct appeal. Petitioner’s objection alleges ineffective assistance because
4

counsel (1) “failed to examine the un-redacted [] PEN Packet,” (2) made no “attempt to
examine the DOC PEN Packet for improper-prejudicial information,” (3) failed to object
to the admission of [] the PEN Packet,” (4) failed to object to the introduction of
Petitioner’s third felony conviction “via the PEN Packet,” and “broke from a viable trial
strategy that the prosecution’s case-in-chief was supported by insufficient evidence, and
told the jury ‘Mr. Mayfield is an addict.” Doc. 25, pp. 13-14.
Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were thoroughly presented to
the OCCA which held that the “alleged deficiencies create no reasonable probability of a
different outcome.” Doc. 14-5, p. 5. Thus, the Report correctly concludes that Petitioner
is unable to demonstrate any prejudice from counsel’s actions regarding the pen packet,
nor that counsel’s trial strategy was deficient or prejudicial. After de novo review, the court
concludes the OCCA reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984),
in finding that Petitioner’s trial counsel was not deficient or prejudicial.
Accordingly, the Report [Doc. #24] is ADOPTED and the petition for writ of
habeas corpus [Doc. #1] is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is also denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2017.

5