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 15, 2017

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

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TERENCE KERN United States District Judge.

         Before 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner 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.[2] During plea proceedings, Petitioner was represented by attorney Steven Vincent. See Dkt. # 11-4 at 1.

         Petitioner 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 14.

         Petitioner 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.

         Petitioner 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. # 11.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Exhaustion/Evidentiary Hearing

         As a 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).

         In addition, the Court 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.