United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, CHIFF JUDGE
the Court is Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
corpus petition (Dkt. # 1). Petitioner is a state inmate and
appears pro se. Respondent filed a response (Dkt. # 6) to the
petition and provided the state court record (Dkt. ## 6, 7,
8, 9) for resolution of the claims raised in the petition.
Petitioner did not file a reply to the response. For the
reasons discussed below, the petition for writ of habeas
corpus shall be denied.
October 16, 2010, Tulsa police officers went to the Tulsa
Select Hotel in search of Petitioner Jeffery Duane Maynard.
Based on information received from a person detained for
shoplifting, the officers suspected that Petitioner was
manufacturing methamphetamine at the hotel. First, the
officers went to Room 162. As the officers approached the
room, they smelled the strong chemical odor associated with
methamphetamine. They gained entry to the room and found
three occupants: Shannon Johnson, Perry Williams, and Tony
Brown. The officers found a one-pot methamphetamine lab in
the bathroom of Room 162. One of the occupants told the
officers that Jeffery Maynard was in Room 463. Based on that
information, the officers proceeded to Room 463. They again
smelled the strong chemical odor of methamphetamine as they
approached the room. One officer telephoned the room and told
the man who answered that there was an emergency downstairs
and that he needed to leave. The officers then observed two
men leave Room 463. As the door opened, visible vapors came
out of the room. One of the men, identified as Jeffery
Maynard, carried a black duffel bag found to contain two
one-liter plastic bottles used as one-pot methamphetamine
labs. The other man leaving Room 463 was identified as Ryan
result of those events, Petitioner and co-defendants Shannon
Johnson, Perry Williams, and Tony Brown were charged in Tulsa
County District Court, Case No. CF-2010-4103, with
Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance
(Methamphetamine). Petitioner was charged with committing the
crime After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. During
Petitioner’s jury trial, both Johnson and Williams
testified for the prosecution. At the conclusion of a two
stage trial, Petitioner’s jury found him guilty as
charged and recommended a sentence of fifty (50) years
imprisonment and a $100,000 fine. On December 21, 2011, the
trial judge sentenced Petitioner in accordance with the
jury’s recommendation. During trial proceedings,
Petitioner was represented by attorneys Stanley D. Monroe and
Stephen G. Layman.
appealed his conviction to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals (OCCA). On direct appeal, Petitioner, represented by
attorney Terry J. Hull, raised six (6) propositions of error,
Proposition 1: The trial court committed plain error by
instructing Appellant’s jury that the status of Shannon
Johnson and Perry Williams as accomplices and, therefore, the
necessity of any independent corroboration of their
testimony, was for the jury to decide, in violation of
Appellant’s due process rights under the 14th Amendment
to the United States Constitution, [and] Art. II, § 7,
of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Proposition 2: Appellant was denied the effective assistance
of trial counsel when counsel failed to request proper
accomplice status instructions as to Shannon Johnson and
Perry Williams, in violation of his rights under the 6th and
14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art.
II, §§7 and 20, of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Proposition 3: The prosecution unmistakably injected the
issue of parole into the sentencing proceedings, denying
Appellant’s due process rights to a fair sentencing
trial under the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Art. II, § 7, of the Oklahoma
Proposition 4: Appellant was denied the effective assistance
of trial counsel when counsel failed to object to the
prosecution’s argument injecting parole considerations
into the proceedings, in violation of his rights under the
6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and
Art. II, §§ 7 and 20, of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Proposition 5: The trial court committed plain error by
erroneously instructing the jury that a fine of at least
$50,000 was mandatory, denying Appellant’s due process
rights to a fair sentencing trial under the 14th Amendment to
the United States Constitution and Art. II, § 7, of the
Proposition 6: Cumulative error denied Appellant a fair
sentencing determination and resulted in an excessive
(Dkt. # 6-1). On April 29, 2013, in an unpublished summary
opinion filed in Case No. F-2011-1140, the OCCA denied relief
and affirmed the Judgment and Sentence of the trial court.
See Dkt. # 6-3. Petitioner did not file a petition
for writ of certiorari at the United States Supreme Court.
September 16, 2013, Petitioner filed an application for
post-conviction relief in state district court alleging
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See
Dkt. # 6-4 at 5. That application was denied on October 25,
2013. Id. Petitioner did not perfect a
post-conviction appeal. However, on December 26, 2013,
Petitioner filed a second application for post-conviction
relief requesting an appeal out of time. Id. By
Order filed January 28, 2014 (Dkt. # 6-4), the state district
judge found that Petitioner failed to show that his failure
to perfect a timely post-conviction appeal was through no
fault of his own and, for that reason, declined to recommend
that Petitioner be granted a post-conviction appeal out of
time. Petitioner appealed. By Order filed March 6, 2014, in
Case No. PC-2014-0162 (Dkt. # 6-6), the OCCA denied
Petitioner’s application for a post-conviction appeal
out of time.
27, 2014, Petitioner filed his federal petition for writ of
habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1).
raises the following grounds of error:
Ground 1: The state court of last resort’s review of
Petitioner’s constitutional claims violated clearly
established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.
28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1).
The trial court committed plain error by instructing
Petitioner’s jury that it was to determine status of
accomplices Shannon Johnson and Perry Williams as well as
necessity of independent corroboration of their testimony was
for jury to determine.
Ground 2: Ineffective assistance claims review by state court
of last resort [was] contrary to clearly established law as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Trial counsel failed to request proper status instruction
with respect to accomplice status of Shannon Johnson and
Ground 3: The state court of last resort’s review of
Petitioner’s ineffective for failure to object to
prosecution injecting issue of parole into the sentencing
phase of trial, violated clearly established federal law as
determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C.
Counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s repetitive
injection of prior felonies to jury prejudiced due process
provisions and fair proceeding.
Ground 4: State court review of Petitioner’s due
process claim the trial court erred by erroneously
instructing jury on fine of at least 50,000.00 was mandatory
was contrary to clearly established constitutional law as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Counsel failed to object to instruction on mandatory fine of
not less than $50,000.00. The jury was improperly instructed
as a result.
Id. Respondent filed a response (Dkt. # 6) to the
petition and argues that Petitioner is not entitled to relief
either under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) or because his claims
are procedurally barred.