Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Maness v. Allbaugh

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

December 21, 2017

BOBBY MANESS, Petitioner,
JOE M. ALLBAUGH, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Respondent.[1]



         Petitioner, Bobby Maness, a state court prisoner appearing pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 8.[2] Petitioner challenges the conviction entered against him in Jefferson County District Court Case No. CF-2013-22. In that case, the trial court found Petitioner guilty of rape by instrumentation in the second degree and sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment and a $2, 500 fine (O.R. 1, 162-64; Tr. 4/29/14, 133; Tr. 6/24/14, 6-7).[3] Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (hereinafter “OCCA”). The OCCA affirmed in an unpublished summary opinion, Maness v. State, No. F-2014-568 (Okla. Crim. App. Aug. 17, 2015).

         Petitioner raises five grounds for relief, all of which were presented to the OCCA in his direct appeal. Respondent has responded to the petition. Doc. 14. No reply has been filed. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.

         I. Facts.

         On June 24, 2013, Petitioner went to the nursing home to visit his mother. While there, he stopped by to see Minia Holloway, who was also a nursing home resident (Tr. 4/29/14, 12, 16, 27-28, 45-46, 49, 78, 92, 107-08, 113-15). Ms. Holloway lived in the nursing home because she was unable to care for herself due to her mental condition. According to Linda Dean, an administrator at the facility, Ms. Holloway needed direction, guidance, and reminders to do certain things like brush her teeth. Based on her experience with Ms. Holloway, Ms. Dean did not believe that Ms. Holloway was able to rationally interpret situations. As Ms. Dean explained, “It depends on how serious, how severe something is. I mean you could tell her something happened to an animal and she would understand that, but you could go into details about something more serious and she may not” (id. at 10, 17-18). Ms. Dean did not think that Ms. Holloway was capable of making serious decisions. She acknowledged that Ms. Holloway is “somewhat” easily confused and that she “might misinterpret somebody's actions” (id. at 18-19).

         When Tammy Goehring came to work around 1:45 p.m. on June 24th, she said hello to Ms. Holloway and immediately sensed that something was not right (Tr. 4/29/14, 34-38). Later, around 3:00 p.m., Ms. Goehring assisted Ms. Holloway with a shower. Ms. Goehring noticed that Ms. Holloway was not her usual self. Ms. Goehring described Ms. Holloway as quiet, slow, disoriented, scared, and confused. When Ms. Goehring asked her what was wrong, Ms. Holloway told her what Petitioner did. Ms. Goehring reported the incident to the charge nurse and the police were called (id. at 13-14, 31-33, 38-40).[4]During her interaction with Ms. Holloway, Ms. Goehring noticed some redness on Ms. Holloway's chest. Ms. Holloway told her that “it must have occurred when the conflict was going on” (id. at 42-43).[5]

         Ms. Holloway testified that she and Petitioner were friends and that he would come to see her at the nursing home (id. at 48, 64). When Petitioner came to see her on June 24th, she was asleep in her bed (id. at 48-49). Ms. Holloway testified that while she was lying in bed, Petitioner reached under the blanket and her clothes and “started playing with [her]” in her private area. She told Petitioner no. Petitioner then grabbed her and told her to get up and stand in front of her closet (id. at 51-53). Ms. Holloway's closet was behind the door to her room (State's Ex. 2). As she stood in front of the closet, Ms. Holloway followed Petitioner's commands to raise her blouse and undo her pants. As Petitioner touched Ms. Holloway, he stroked the front of his pants. Although Ms. Holloway told him not to, Petitioner put his finger in her vagina. Ms. Holloway testified that it hurt and that she told Petitioner to stop many times. Petitioner stopped when a nursing home employee came down the hall (id. at 53-54, 57-58).

         Waurika Police Officer Derrick Durbin investigated the incident and questioned Petitioner about it. After waiving his Miranda rights, Petitioner admitted to touching Ms. Holloway's breasts and vagina, but claimed it was consensual. He said that Ms. Holloway unzipped her pants and that he felt her. He told Officer Durbin that there was a chance that he penetrated her, but he “didn't recall.” Petitioner admitted that Ms. Holloway told him to stop because it hurt. Petitioner said he stopped for a minute and then continued. When Ms. Holloway complained again that it hurt, Petitioner finally stopped (Tr. 4/29/14, 75-80; State's Ex. 5).

         In addition to his interview with Officer Durbin, Petitioner also gave a written statement. In the written statement, Petitioner admits to petting Ms. Holloway's upper leg and giving her a kiss while she was in the bed. He also admits to rubbing Ms. Holloway with her consent, giving such details as being by the door, Ms. Holloway undoing her “britches, ” and rubbing her until she told him twice to stop because it hurt (Tr. 4/29/14, 80-81, 87-89; State's Ex. 6).

         Despite his prior statements, Petitioner testified and denied any inappropriate touching of Ms. Holloway. At trial, Petitioner did not even claim that Ms. Holloway consented. Instead, he testified that he “did not rub her and . . . did not penetrate her.” In an effort to explain away his written statement to the contrary, Petitioner said that it was the result of him being frustrated, irritated, and mad (Tr. 4/29/14, 113-27).[6]

         In addition to his own testimony, Petitioner presented three additional witnesses. Gerald Tallon, the maintenance manager at the nursing home, had known Petitioner's family since before Petitioner was born. He testified that on June 24th he was in the hallway thirty feet from Ms. Holloway's room when he overheard most of the conversation between Petitioner and Ms. Holloway. He described their conversation as cordial. According to Mr. Tallon, the visit ended with a hug and expressions of love and Ms. Holloway was not upset afterwards (id. at 90-103). Another employee, Pamela McCollough, testified that after the incident, Ms. Holloway told her what had happened, but that she did not seem upset about it (id. at 104-06). Petitioner's final witness was his sister, Barbara Porterfield. Ms. Porterfield testified that Petitioner and Ms. Holloway were friends. She also testified that Petitioner had low intelligence and that he was on medication for his nerves (id. at 106-09).

         Additional facts will be referenced herein as they relate to the individual grounds for relief raised by Petitioner.

         II. Standard of Review.

         Because the OCCA addressed the merits of all of Petitioner's grounds for relief, the Court reviews them in accordance with the standard of relief set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Section 2254(d) requires Petitioner to show that the OCCA's adjudication of his claims either

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented ...

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.