Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blevins v. Farris

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

March 17, 2017

JOEL ALLEN BLEVINS, Petitioner,
v.
JIM FARRIS, Warden, [1]Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         On June 28, 2016, Petitioner, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On July 5, 2016, the case was transferred to this Court (Dkt. # 7). In response to the petition, Respondent filed a “motion to dismiss petition for habeas corpus for failure to timely file petition” (Dkt. # 10), along with a supporting brief (Dkt. # 11). Petitioner filed a “combined motion to suppliment [sic] origional [sic] application and brief/response to motion to dismiss” (Dkt. ## 15, 16). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner's motion to supplement shall be granted, the motion to dismiss shall be granted, and the petition shall be dismissed with prejudice as time barred.

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner challenges his convictions and sentences entered in Ottawa County District Court, Case Nos. CF-2003-386B and CF-2003-540. See Dkt. # 1 at 1. The record reflects that on December 16, 2003, in Case No. CF-2003-386B, Petitioner entered pleas of guilty to Manufacture of CDS within 2000 ft of School (Count 1), Possession of CDS within 2000 ft of School or Park (Count 2), and Possession of Paraphernalia (Count 3).[2] See Dkt. # 11-14. The trial judge accepted Petitioner's pleas and sentenced him that day to twenty (20) years imprisonment, with all but the first ten (10) years suspended, and a $50, 000 fine with $49, 000 suspended (Count 1); twenty (20) years imprisonment, with all but the first ten (10) years suspended, and a $1, 000 fine (Count 2); and a $100 fine (Count 3). See Dkt. # 11-19 at 13-14. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Id. On January 9, 2004, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his pleas. See Dkt. # 11-14 at 5. By order filed January 15, 2004, the motion was denied as untimely. Id. Petitioner did not perfect a certiorari appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA). See Dkt. # 11-2 at 1 n.1. Attorney Terry Weber represented Petitioner during plea proceedings. See Dkt. # 11-19 at 2.

         On April 7, 2004, in Case No. CF-2003-540, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to Child Sexual Abuse.[3] See Dkt. # 11-15 at 5. The trial judge accepted Petitioner's plea and sentenced him that day to fifteen (15) years imprisonment with all but the first five (5) years suspended, to be served concurrently with the sentences entered in Case No. CF-2003-386B. See Dkt. # 11-20 at 12. During the plea proceeding, the trial judge carefully explained the provisions of the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act (OSORA). Id. at 15-18. Petitioner averred that he understood the registration requirements. Id. Petitioner did not file a motion to withdraw his plea and did not perfect a certiorari appeal in the OCCA. See Dkt. ## 11-15, 11-2 at 1 n.1. Attorney Terry Weber represented Petitioner during plea proceedings. See Dkt. # 11-20 at 2.

         On October 4, 2004, Petitioner filed motions for judicial review in both cases, and the motions were denied on October 5, 2004. See Dkt. # 11-14 at 6; Dkt. # 11-15 at 6.

         On July 7, 2006, in Case No. CF-2003-386B, Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief (Dkt. # 11-9). By Order filed August 18, 2006 (Dkt. # 11-10), the state district judge denied the application for post-conviction relief finding Petitioner's claims to be procedurally barred. Petitioner appealed. Id. at 4-5. On December 28, 2006, in Case No. PC-2006-981 (Dkt. # 11-11), the OCCA imposed a procedural bar and affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. Petitioner did not file an application for post-conviction relief in Case No. CF-2003-540 until February 10, 2014. See Dkt. # 11-3.

         On August 3, 2011, the State filed applications to revoke suspended sentences in both cases. See Dkt. # 11-14 at 8; Dkt. # 11-15 at 7. On October 5, 2011, after having found Petitioner to be competent on September 26, 2011, see Dkt. # 11-14 at 10; Dkt. # 11-15 at 9, the state district judge granted the applications to revoke and revoked Petitioner's suspended sentences in full. See Dkt. # 11-14 at 10-11; Dkt. # 11-15 at 9. Petitioner appealed the revocations to the OCCA. On May 1, 2013, in Case No. RE-2011-914, the OCCA affirmed the orders revoking Petitioner's suspended sentences. See Dkt. # 11 at 3; see also Dkt. # 11-4 at 2; Dkt. # 11-7 at 2.

         After the OCCA affirmed the revocation orders in 2013, Petitioner filed numerous collateral challenges to his convictions. See Dkt. ## 11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-8 (post-conviction proceedings commenced on February 10, 2014, and terminated with OCCA's order declining jurisdiction, filed June 4, 2014, in Case No. PC-2014-460); Dkt. ## 11-12, 11-3 (collateral challenges filed in district court on February 18, 2015, and terminated with OCCA's order, filed October 5, 2015, in Case No. PC-2015-307, reversing and remanding to district court with instructions to enter “proper orders” disposing of Petitioner's motions); Dkt. ## 11-1, 11-2 (post-conviction appeal from district court's order filed December 11, 2015, and terminated with OCCA's order, filed April 22, 2016, in Case No. PC-2016-12, affirming district court's dismissal of post-conviction proceedings). Petitioner's efforts to obtain collateral relief from his convictions and sentences have been unsuccessful.

         On June 28, 2016, Petitioner filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1). Petitioner raises twelve (12) grounds of error, as follows:

Ground 1: Petitioner was not accorded a competency hearing.
Ground 2: Retro-active application of and not informing Petitioner of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registration Act or his true range of punishment prior to accepting his plea violated due process, double jeopardy, ex post facto and violates the Bill of Attainder Clause, makig [sic] his plea truly involunary [sic] and unintelligent.
Ground 3: Petitioner's counsel was ineffective.
Ground 4: Conviction obtained by plea of guilty which was unlawfully induced or not made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.
Ground 5: Conviction obtained by the unconstitutional failure of the prosecution to disclose to the defendant evidence favorable to the defendant.
Ground 6: Conviction obtained by a violation of the protection against double jeopardy.
Ground 7: Accumulative Error's [sic].
Ground 8: Abuse of discretion based on prejudice of the Court.
Ground 9: Challenge to the Constitutionality of OSORA the Sex Offender Registration Act, 57 O.S., § 581 et. seq.
Ground 10: Petitioner challenges the Constitutionality of the Plea Bargaining Doctrine as applied by Oklahoma Law.
Ground 11: Actual Innocence.
Ground 12: SORNA overreaches the government's spending limits and is unconstitutional.

Id. As stated above, Respondent moves to dismiss the petition as time barred. See Dkt. ## 10, 11.

         In response, Petitioner has filed a combined motion to supplement his petition (Dkt. # 15) and response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 16). As a preliminary matter, the Court shall grant Petitioner's motion to supplement and shall consider the supplemental information alleged in Petitioner's response in resolving issue of timeliness. In his response, Petitioner states that he abandons Grounds 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Id. at 2. Because Petitioner has abandoned Grounds 8-12, the Court will analyze the timeliness of Grounds 1-7.

         ANALYSIS

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), enacted April 24, 1996, established a one-year limitations ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.