United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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. 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). 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in an unpublished summary opinion, Maness v. State,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).
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.
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).
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).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.
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
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).
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.
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).
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).
facts will be referenced herein as they relate to the
individual grounds for relief raised by Petitioner.
Standard of Review.
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;
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented