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.

Wilson v. Kiss

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

May 10, 2017

CHARLES EDWARD WILSON, Petitioner,
v.
STEVE KISS, Chief of Security, [1]Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          CLAIRE V. EAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition (Dkt. # 1) filed by Petitioner, a state inmate appearing pro se. Respondent filed a response (Dkt. # 6) to the petition and provided the state court record (Dkt. ## 6, 7) 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 March 22, 2010, Tulsa County Sheriff Deputies attempted to serve a felony warrant on Johnny Wilson[2] at a house located at 135 South 36th West Avenue in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Katrina Owens, a resident at the house, opened the door after the deputies knocked and allowed the deputies to enter the home to look for Johnny Wilson. Deputy Lou Marie Randall searched a bedroom where she found Petitioner Charles Wilson sitting on the bed. Wilson told Deputy Randall it was his house. As the deputies looked through the house, they observed several items and products associated with manufacturing methamphetamine. The deputies obtained written and verbal consent to search the residence from Charles Wilson, Owens, and another resident, Gerald Maxey. Although the deputies did not find Johnny Wilson, they found, in Charles Wilson's bedroom, the following items: Coleman fuel, coffee filters, and two bottles hidden in the sleeves of a jacket hanging in the bedroom closet. The bottles had tubing coming out of them and contained a 2-layer liquid. On a nightstand next to Charles Wilson's bed, the deputies found small baggies containing a white powdery residue that field-tested positive for methamphetamine. Also on the nightstand were a prescription bottle and a bill from Oklahoma State University (OSU) Health Care Center, both bearing the name “Charles Wilson.”

         As a result of those events, Petitioner was charged in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2010-1178, with Endeavoring to Deliver, Manufacture, or Possess Controlled Drugs (Methamphetamine) (Count 1), and Possession of a Controlled Drug (Methamphetamine) (Count 2). At the conclusion of a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty as charged. The jury recommended sentences of twelve (12) years imprisonment (Count 1), and seven (7) years imprisonment (Count 2). On August 27, 2012, the trial judge sentenced Petitioner in accordance with the jury's recommendation and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. See Dkt. # 6-1. During trial proceedings, Petitioner was represented by attorney Steven Vincent.

         Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA). Represented by attorney Gail Gunning, Petitioner raised four (4) propositions of error, as follows:

Proposition 1: Evidence flowing from the warrantless search of Appellant's residence should be suppressed.
Proposition 2: The trial evidence was insufficient to support Appellant's conviction on Count 1.
Proposition 3: The trial evidence was insufficient to support Appellant's conviction on Count II.
Proposition 4: Appellant's sentences are excessive.

(Dkt. # 6-2). On October 14, 2013, in an unpublished summary opinion filed in Case No. F-2012-882, the OCCA rejected Petitioner's claims and affirmed the Judgments and Sentences of the trial court. See Dkt. # 6-3.

         Petitioner filed a timely petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) and raises the same four (4) claims raised on direct appeal. Respondent filed a response (Dkt. # 6) to the petition and asserts that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Exhaustion/Evidentiary Hearing

         Before addressing the claims raised in the petition, the Court must determine whether Petitioner meets the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). Respondent concedes, see Dkt. # 6 at 2, ¶ 5, and the Court agrees, that Petitioner's claims raised in the petition were presented to the OCCA on direct appeal and are exhausted.

         The Court also finds that Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 184-85 ...


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.