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.

Alcala v. Bryant

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

March 30, 2017

MICHAEL THOMAS ALCALA, Petitioner,
v.
JASON BRYANT, Warden, [1]Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. DOWDELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 2) filed by Petitioner, a state inmate represented by counsel. Respondent filed a response (Doc. 7), and provided the state court records necessary for adjudication of Petitioner's claims (Docs. 7, 8). Petitioner did not file a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

         BACKGROUND

         In March 2009, ten-year-old R.B. told her older half brother and her mother that her father, Petitioner Michael Thomas Alcala, had touched her “private” and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. The police were called and an investigation followed. A child specialist, employed by the Child Abuse Network at the Justice Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, conducted a forensic interview of R.B. Based on the interview and police investigation, Petitioner was charged, in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2009-1409, with two (2) counts of Child Sexual Abuse. Count 1 charged Petitioner with sexually abusing R.B. “on more than one occasion . . . by placing his hand on and rubbing [her] vagina” between December 14, 2006, and February 15, 2009, at 12406 East 13th Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, the home of Petitioner's girlfriend, Jilinda Davis. See Doc. 8-3, Tr. Vol. II at 233. Count 2 charged Petitioner with sexually abusing R.B. “on more than one occasion . . . by placing his hand on and rubbing [her] vagina” between December 14, 2006, and February 15, 2009, at 5721 East Easton Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, the home where Petitioner lived after he broke up with Ms. Davis. Id. at 233-34.

         The record reflects that, at the conclusion of trial, a jury found Petitioner guilty as charged. See Doc. 8-4, Tr. Vol. III at 511. On March 28, 2011, the trial judge sentenced Petitioner, in accordance with the jury's recommendation, to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment and a $500 fine on each count, but suspended the last five (5) years of each sentence, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. See Doc. 8-5 at 5. The trial judge also declined to set a judicial review. Id. At trial, attorney Beverly Atteberry represented Petitioner.

         Petitioner perfected a direct appeal in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA). Represented by attorney Robert W. Jackson, Petitioner raised three (3) propositions of error, as follows:

Proposition 1: Plain, reversible error occurred when the jury was exposed to improper evidence and argument concerning Mr. Alcala's refusal to take a polygraph test.
Proposition 2: The trial court erred in failing to require the prosecution to “elect between acts.”
Proposition 3: Mr. Alcala failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Doc. 7-1. In an unpublished summary opinion, entered January 22, 2013, in Case No. F-2011-252, the OCCA affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence. See Doc. 7-3. Petitioner did not seek certiorari review at the Supreme Court nor did he seek post-conviction relief in the state courts.

         On April 21, 2014, Petitioner, represented by attorney Steven M. Presson, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 2). He raises one ground of error: “Mr. Alcala failed to receive effective assistance of counsel during his jury trial.” Id. at 6. In response to the petition, Respondent argues that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

         ANALYSIS

         A. Exhaustion

         As an initial matter, the Court must determine whether Petitioner meets the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). Petitioner presented the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in the petition ...


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.