United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE C. KERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Petitioner Edwin Jermaine Daniels' habeas
corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1).
Petitioner challenges his Tulsa County District Court
convictions for burglary, armed robbery, and assault, No.
CF-2012-4773. Dkt. 1 at 1. For the reasons below, the Court
will deny the petition.
case stems from a series of home invasions during the summer
of 2012. Dkt. 9-1 at 8-25. Between June 17, 2012 and July 26,
2012, Petitioner and a co-conspirator entered six homes and
robbed the occupants at gunpoint. Id. In most cases,
the occupants were also bound or confined until the men
exited the home. Id. Police eventually apprehended
Petitioner at his girlfriend's apartment complex, where
they discovered a number of televisions and other stolen
goods. Dkt. 10-5 at 91-93.
October 24, 2012, the State filed a 26-count Indictment
(Information) against Petitioner and co-conspirator Michael
Darnell Hillard. Dkt. 10-13 at 69. The charges included,
inter alia, first degree burglary, robbery with a firearm,
kidnapping, and assault. Id. Following a jury trial,
Petitioner was convicted of the following counts:
(Counts 1, 10, 18, 20, and 23): first degree burglary (Okla.
Stat. tit. 21, § 1431);
(Counts 2, 11, 15, 21, and 24): robbery with a firearm (Okla.
Stat. tit. 21, § 801);
(Count 19): attempted robbery with a firearm (Okla. Stat.
tit. 21, § 801);
(Counts 3 and 25): assault while masked or disguised (Okla.
Stat. tit. 21, § 1303); and
(Counts 12 and 16): kidnapping (Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §
9-3 at 1. In accordance with the jury's recommendation,
the state court sentenced Petitioner to a total term of 307
years imprisonment. Dkt. 10-12 at 6-10.
perfected a direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals (“OCCA”). Dkt. 9-1. His appellate counsel
raised three propositions of error:
(Propositions 1, 2, and 4): Instructional error.
(Proposition 3): Prosecutorial misconduct.
(Proposition 5): Ineffective assistance of counsel.
Id. at 2. By a Summary Opinion entered May 26, 2015,
the OCCA found that the state court erred by instructing the
jury about a mandatory $10, 000 fine and vacated the fines.
Id. at 4. The OCCA determined the remaining jury
instructions were proper; the prosecutor did not commit
misconduct; and trial counsel provided capable assistance.
Id. The OCCA therefore affirmed Petitioner's
conviction and sentence. Id.
filed the instant § 2254 Petition (Dkt. 1) on February
2, 2016. He identifies essentially the same grounds for
relief as he raised on appeal. Respondent filed a Response
(Dkt. 9) along with copies of the state court record (Dkt.
10). Respondent concedes, and the Court finds, that the
petition is timely and the exhaustion requirement is
satisfied. See Dkt. 9 at 3; see also 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244(d)(1), 2254(b)(1)(A). The matter is
ready for a merits review.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) governs
this Court's review of petitioner's habeas claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Relief is only available
under the AEDPA where the petitioner “is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Further,
because the OCCA already adjudicated petitioner's claims,
this Court may not grant habeas relief unless he demonstrates
that the OCCA's ruling: (1) “resulted in a decision
that was contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law as
determined by Supreme Court of the United States, ” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); (2) “resulted in a decision that
. . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly
established Federal law, ” id.; or (3)
“resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts” in light of
the record presented to the state court, id. at
determine whether a particular decision is ‘contrary
to' then-established law, a federal court must consider
whether the decision ‘applies a rule that contradicts
[such] law' and how the decision ‘confronts [the]
set of facts' that were before the state court.”
Cullen v. Pinholster,563 U.S. 170, 182 (2011)
(alterations in original) (quotations omitted). When the
state court's decision “identifies the correct
governing legal principle in existence at the time, a federal
court must assess whether the decision ‘unreasonably
applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's
case.” Id. (quotations omitted).
Significantly, an “unreasonable application of”
clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1)
“must be objectively unreasonable, not merely
wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1702
(2014) (quotations omitted). “[E]ven clear error will
not suffice.” Id. Likewise, under §
2254(d)(2), “a state-court factual determination is not
unreasonable merely because the federal habeas court would