United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
V. EAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
March 22, 2010, Tulsa County Sheriff Deputies attempted to
serve a felony warrant on Johnny Wilson 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.”
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Court also finds that Petitioner is not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563
U.S. 170, 184-85 ...