United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
J»mes H. Payne United States District Judge
habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was
transferred to this Court from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff
Division. McLaughlin v. Kelley, No.
17-cv-295-DPM-JJV (E.D. Ark., Pine Bluff Div. Aug. 29, 2018)
(Dkt. 32-4). Petitioner is a pro se state prisoner in the
custody of the Arkansas Department of Corrections who
currently is incarcerated at the Barbara Ester Unit in Pine
is challenging his Oklahoma convictions for Burglary in the
Second Degree, after former conviction of nine felonies, and
Unlawful Use of a Police Scanner, after former conviction of
nine felonies, in the District Court of LeFlore County, No.
CF-2009-340 (Dkts. 32-1; 32-3 at 3). These convictions are to
be served after he completes his current Arkansas sentences.
Id. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss
Petitioner's second amended petition for failure to
exhaust state court remedies (Dkts. 28, 31).
raises three grounds for habeas relief:
I. Violation of Article III(a) of the Interstate Agreement on
II. Violation of Article IV(c) of the Interstate Agreement on
III. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
(Dkt. 28 at 5-7, 11-12).
record shows Petitioner entered a blind plea of no contest to
the charges in LeFlore County No. CF-2009-340 (Dkt. 32-2). He
subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which was
denied by the state district court (Dkt. 32-5 at 5-6).
Petitioner next perfected a Certiorari appeal to the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals in No. C-2017-104 (Dkt. 32-6). He
raised three grounds for relief in his Certiorari appeal:
I. Because Count 3 of the Information was dismissed at the
plea hearing, the trial court was without jurisdiction to
find Petitioner guilty and impose a sentence and a fine on
Count 3 at the sentencing hearing. This court should,
therefore, dismiss the count and remand the matter to the
district court with instructions.
II. Because Petitioner invoked the provisions of the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, the trial court's
failure to conduct a trial within 180 days was a violation of
the Act which requires dismissal of the case.
III. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, two life
sentences are shockingly excessive.
(Dkt. 32-5 at 2).
alleges Petitioner has filed a mixed petition, because only
one of the three grounds for habeas relief has been exhausted
through the state courts. Petitioner alleges in his response
to the motion to dismiss that all grounds in the petition
raise claims of ...