United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE KERN United States District Judge.
the Court is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition
(Dkt. # 1) filed by Petitioner Charles Edward Wilson, a state
prisoner appearing pro se. Respondent filed a response to the
petition (Dkt. # 11), and provided the state court record
necessary for resolution of Petitioner's claims
(id.). Petitioner did not file a reply. For the
reasons discussed below, the petition is denied.
challenges his convictions and sentences entered in Tulsa
County District Court, Case No. CF-2009-4192. See
Dkt. # 1. The record reflects that, on August 27, 2012,
Petitioner entered negotiated pleas of guilty to Unlawful
Possession of a Controlled Drug (Methamphetamine), After
Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (Count 1), and
Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Count 2).
Petitioner was sentenced that day to twenty (20) years
imprisonment on Count 1 and one (1) year in the county jail
on Count 2, to be served concurrently with each other and
concurrently with sentences totaling nineteen (19) years
entered in Tulsa County District Court, Case No.
CF-2010-1178. During plea proceedings, Petitioner was
represented by attorney Steven Vincent. See Dkt. #
11-4 at 1.
filed a timely motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty (Dkt. #
11-5). On October 25, 2012, the trial judge held a hearing on
the motion. See Dkt. # 11-6. During the hearing on
the motion to withdraw pleas, attorney Bliss Lowe represented
Petitioner. Id. at 1. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial judge denied the motion. Id. at
filed a petition for writ of certiorari (Dkt. # 11-7) in the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA). Represented by
attorney Curtis M. Allen, Petitioner raised the following
propositions of error:
Proposition I: Charles Wilson's pleas were not knowingly
and intelligently made.
Proposition II: The sentence in this case is excessive and
shocks the conscience.
See Dkt. # 11-8 at 2. In an unpublished Summary
Opinion, filed July 9, 2013, in Case No. C-2012-1037 (Dkt. #
11-9), the OCCA affirmed the district court's denial of
Petitioner's motion to withdraw plea of guilty.
commenced this federal action by filing a pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) and a supporting brief (Dkt.
# 2). Petitioner alleges, as he did on certiorari appeal,
that (1) his guilty pleas were not entered voluntarily and
knowingly, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment; and (2) the sentence was excessive and shocks the
conscience, in violation of his rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. See Dkt. # 1 at 5. In
response to the petition, Respondent argues that Petitioner
is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. See Dkt. #
preliminary matter, 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. # 11 at 2
¶ 5, and the Court agrees, that Petitioner fairly
presented his habeas claims to the OCCA on certiorari appeal.
Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied the
exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
addition, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to
an evidentiary hearing. See Cullen v. Pinholster,
563 U.S. 170, 184-85 ...