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.

Maynard v. Allbaugh

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

April 17, 2017

JEFFERY DUANE MAYNARD, Petitioner,
v.
JOE M. ALLBAUGH, Director,[1]Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, CHIFF JUDGE

         Before 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.

         BACKGROUND

         On 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 Lane.

         As a 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).[2] 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.

         Petitioner 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, as follows:

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 Constitution.
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 Oklahoma Constitution.
Proposition 6: Cumulative error denied Appellant a fair sentencing determination and resulted in an excessive sentence.

(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.

         On 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.

         On May 27, 2014, Petitioner filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1).

         Petitioner 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 Perry Williams.
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. 2254(d)(1),(2).
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.

         ANALYSIS

         A. ...


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.