United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
John Joseph McDonald, a state prisoner appearing pro se,
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1]
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a
response and Petitioner filed a reply. See Resp.,
Doc. No. 15; Reply, Doc. No. 17. Before the Court is the
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20] (“R. &
R.”) issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Judge Mitchell
recommends the § 2254 Petition be denied. Specifically,
Judge Mitchell determined that Petitioner's first
proposition for relief-“Petitioner plead[ed] not guilty
and was sentenced without pleading guilty or being tried in
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment cons[titutional]
rights”-and his third proposition for relief-that his
“trial counsel was ineffective for not advocating at
the plea hearing that Petitioner was not capable of entering
a guilty plea due to his mental health status”-were not
exhausted in state court and are barred by the doctrine of
anticipatory procedural default, and that none of the
exceptions to such doctrine apply. Pet. 3, 9, Doc. No. 1
(emphasis omitted). Judge Mitchell also concluded that
Petitioner's second proposition for relief-that the
“trial court abused its discretion when good faith
showed reason for [Petitioner]'s mental health concern[
and the] trial court did not sua sponte order mental health
hearing”-failed because Petitioner has not established
that a reasonable judge should have had a bona fide doubt as
to his competency to enter a guilty plea. Id. at 7
timely filed an Objection [Doc. No. 21] to the R. & R.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R. & R.
to which Petitioner has made specific objection. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Upon such
review, the Court fully concurs with the analysis set forth
in the comprehensive and well-reasoned R. & R. issued by
Judge Mitchell, which addresses all of the arguments included
in Petitioner's Objection. All told, nothing included by
Petitioner in his Objection (or in his Petition or reply
brief) leads the Court to find any error on its de novo
review of the recommended disposition included in the R.
& R. Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2254 Petition
will be denied.
THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
No. 20] is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 is DENIED.
separate judgment will be entered contemporaneous to this
FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) is
DENIED. When a habeas petition is denied on procedural
grounds, a petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he
demonstrates that “jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Frost v.
Pryor, 749 F.3d 1212, 1232 (10th Cir. 2014) (treating
decision regarding exhaustion as a procedural ruling for
purposes of the COA standard). Where a habeas petition is
denied on the merits, Petitioner is entitled to a COA only if
he demonstrates “that jurists of reason could disagree
with the district court's resolution of his
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the
issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Petitioner has not made either showing.
Therefore, a COA is denied. This denial shall be included in
 Mr. Crow, the interim director of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, is substituted for the
respondents listed by Petitioner in his Petition for the
reasons explained by Judge Mitchell. See R. & R.
1 n.1, Doc. No. 20; Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d).
 Petitioner asserts that the state
trial court was required to (but did not) follow the
procedure for determining one's competency to plead
guilty included in King v. State, 553 P.2d 529
(Okla. Crim. App. 1976). Habeas relief requires that the
action complained of have been “contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of
the United States. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)
(emphasis added). Judge Mitchell applied the correct standard
and proceeded through the correct analysis regarding