United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
A. White, United States District Judge.
a pro se prisoner currently incarcerated at Oklahoma State
Reformatory in Granite, Oklahoma, is challenging his
convictions and sentences in Carter County District Court
Case No. CF-2009-112 for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled
Dangerous Substance, After Former Conviction of Two or More
Felonies, and Case No. CM-2009-193 for Reckless Driving,
Attempting to Elude a Police Officer, and Driving with
License Suspended. On March 12, 2015, the Court dismissed
Petitioner's § 2254 habeas corpus petition as
time-barred (Dkt. 21).
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for
further proceedings, finding this Court should have granted
Petitioner's request for equitable tolling of the statute
of limitations. Loftis v. Chrisman, 812 F.3d 1268,
No. 15-7017 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2016) (Dkt. 32). At the
direction of the Court, Respondent has responded to the
petition (Dkt. 41).
raises the following grounds for relief:
I. Absolute exclusion of the defense witnesses was
unwarranted and denied Mr. Loftis of a meaningful opportunity
to present a complete defense.
II. Mr. Loftis represented himself at trial without the trial
court's determining if he was competent to do so, or that
his decision to represent himself was voluntary.
III. The trial court erred by permitting the jury to enhance
punishment with two prior convictions which were part of the
IV. Because the written second stage jury instructions are
missing from the district court file, and are not part of the
record on appeal, Mr. Loftis has been deprived of his right
to fully appeal the second stage of his trial, therefore his
sentences must be modified.
V. Prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments deprived
Mr. Loftis of a fair trial.
VI. The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support the conviction for possession of cocaine, as there
was insufficient proof of possession.
VII. Mr. Loftis should be granted relief based upon
VIII. The trial court erred when it ordered Mr. Loftis'
convictions to be run consecutively.
IX. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to the effective assistance of counsel
during the pretrial phase of his criminal proceedings.
X. A. Trial counsel committed reversible error by ordering
Petitioner to appear just minutes before trial for a hearing
to determine if he wanted to represent himself, predicated on
ex parte advice of defense counsel, where the record is void
of any affirmative showing ...