United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Petitioner's petition for a
writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. [Doc. 1]. Petitioner, a pro se prisoner in the
custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, is
currently incarcerated at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in
McAlester, Oklahoma. Following a jury trial, Petitioner was
convicted of one count of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled
Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) (63 O.S.Supp.2012,
§ 2-402), after former conviction of two or more
felonies, in Carter County District Court No. CF-2013-344. He
was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment in accordance
with the jury's recommendation.
was represented by counsel Eric R. Jones at trial and counsel
Robert W. Jackson with the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System
on direct appeal. Appellate counsel raised one claim on
direct appeal, arguing that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment
rights were violated when the trial court refused to allow
him to call a material witness in his defense. [Doc. 13-2].
Petitioner's conviction was affirmed by the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) on direct appeal. See
Jackson v. State, F-2014-222 (Okla. Crim. App. Jan. 6,
2015) (unpublished). [Doc. 13-4].
habeas action, Petitioner alleges that his appellate counsel
was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that
trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when the
prosecutor deliberately deceived the jury by presenting false
testimony. Respondent concedes the § 2254 petition is
timely and that Petitioner has exhausted his state court
remedies for the purpose of federal habeas corpus review.
[Doc. 13 at 3]. Petitioner, appearing pro se,
previously filed two applications for post-conviction relief
in the state district court. [Docs. 13-5 and 13-6]. Both
applications were almost identical, and Petitioner asserted
the same claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
for failing to raise the claim of ineffective assistance of
trial counsel on direct appeal. The Carter County District
Court denied relief [Doc. 13-8], and Petitioner appealed the
state trial court's order denying post-conviction relief.
He filed a petition in error and brief in support of petition
in error with the OCCA. [Docs. 13-9 and 13-10]. The OCCA
affirmed the district court's denial of post-conviction
relief. [Doc. 13-11].
following have been submitted for consideration in this
Petitioner's direct appeal brief.
State's brief in Petitioner's direct appeal.
Summary Opinion affirming Petitioner's judgment and
Petitioner's applications for post-conviction relief.
State's response to Petitioner's application for
Order denying Petitioner's application for
Petition in error.
Brief in support of petition in error.
Order affirming denial of post-conviction relief.
State court record.
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, federal
habeas corpus relief is proper only when the state court
adjudication of a claim:
(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
in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
26, 2013, at approximately 1:40 a.m., Ardmore Police Officer
Juan Galicia pulled behind a truck and noticed the
operational failure of the center brake light. [Doc. 14-2 at
123, 134]. Before the officer could make the stop, however,
the vehicle turned into a driveway and its driver turned off
the vehicle headlamps. Id. at 123. Thinking such
activity was strange, Officer Galicia traveled a short
distance down the road and set up near an intersection.
Id. After a brief period of time, the vehicle
approached the intersection. Id. at 123-24. Officer
Galicia pulled behind the truck and activated his overhead
lights to initiate a traffic stop. Id. at 124.
vehicle came to a stop and Officer Galicia made contact with
the driver and three occupants. Id. Officer Galicia
asked Petitioner, who was the driver, to provide a
driver's license and insurance verification. Id.
at 124-25. Petitioner provided an insurance verification for
a different vehicle, but not for the truck that had been
stopped. Id. at 125. He did not provide a
driver's license. Id. After gathering
information about Petitioner and his passengers, the officer
contacted dispatch for a license and warrant check.
Id. Petitioner did not hold a valid driver's
license, and he was ...