Benton v. Addison, Case No. 14-CV-026-JED-PJC

• Decision Date: 30 July 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 14-CV-026-JED-PJC
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma
• Parties: JOSHUA ROBERT BENTON, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL ADDISON, Warden, Respondent.

JOSHUA ROBERT BENTON, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL ADDISON, Warden, Respondent.

Case No. 14-CV-026-JED-PJC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

July 30, 2015

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) filed by Petitioner, a state inmate appearing pro se. Respondent filed a response (Docs. 10, 12) and provided the state court records (Docs. 10, 11, 12, 13) necessary for adjudication of Petitioner's claims. Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent's response (Doc. 14). For the reasons discussed below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be denied.

BACKGROUND

In December 2010, Petitioner Joshua Robert Benton (Petitioner) lived with his girlfriend, Shannon Hicks (Hicks), and her children in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. On the evening of Monday, December 6, 2010, Hicks went to shop at the local Walmart, leaving the children alone with Petitioner. After Hicks returned from shopping, Petitioner, employed by the Washington County Sheriff's Office, went to work the graveyard shift at the Washington County Jail. During the overnight hours of December 6-7, 2010, Hicks' 3-year-old son, C.N., was sick and vomited repeatedly. On the afternoon of Tuesday, December 7, 2010, Hicks and Petitioner awoke from napping to find C.N. non-responsive. While Hicks called 911, Petitioner began CPR. An ambulance arrived and transported C.N. to Jane Phillips Hospital in Bartlesville, where he died. The emergency medical technician who responded to the 911 call observed no obvious external injuries to C.N.Because he had been sick, C.N.'s death was initially attributed to illness. However, during autopsy, the medical examiner determined that C.N.'s death resulted from a "widely displaced fracture" of the lower spine and that the manner of death was homicide.

After talking to the medical examiner, Detective Steven Birmingham, an investigator for the Bartlesville Police Department, began interviewing people who had contact with C.N. in the days preceding his death. On December 8, 2010, Hicks, accompanied by Petitioner, arrived voluntarily at the police station to be interviewed. After interviewing Hicks, Birmingham encountered Petitioner in the lobby area of the police station and asked Petitioner if he would be willing to be interviewed. Petitioner agreed. At that time, Birmingham considered Petitioner to be a person of interest or a possible witness, but he did not consider Petitioner to be a suspect. During the videotaped interview, Petitioner became emotional and teared up. He admitted that, during the evening of December 6, 2010, while Hicks was away from the home, he had pushed C.N. back "a little bit" while putting him to bed. After Petitioner regained his composure, he asked Birmingham "what's going to happen?" Based on Petitioner's responses and behavior during the interview, Birmingham arrested Petitioner for child abuse. Birmingham did not advise Petitioner of his Miranda¹ rights either before or during the interview.

Based on those events, Petitioner was charged by Information filed in Washington County District Court, Case No. CF-2010-498, with First Degree Murder Involving the Death of a Child. On February 21-23, 2012, Petitioner was tried by a jury. He testified in his own defense and denied using force sufficient to cause C.N.'s injury. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Petitioner guilty as charged. On May 11, 2012, the trial judge sentenced Petitioner in accordance with thejury's recommendation to life imprisonment. At trial, Petitioner was represented by attorneys Jim Conatser and Kristi Sanders.

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA). Represented by attorney William H. Luker, Petitioner raised the following propositions of error:

Proposition 1: The trial court committed reversible error when it allowed the prosecution to introduce Appellant's statements to the police on December 8, 2010, because at the time Appellant was in police custody and was not advised of his constitutional rights. It follows that the admission of these statements and the fruits thereof violated Appellant's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Proposition 2: The trial court committed reversible error by permitting Jennifer Chafin, a former investigator for the Washington County Department of Human Services, to testify regarding her investigation into this case and her observations of the victim's mother because such evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial to Appellant. The admission of this evidence violated Appellant's rights to due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Proposition 3: The trial court committed reversible error when it permitted the State to introduce the medical examiner's report into evidence over Appellant's objections. The report contained irrelevant hearsay evidence from an unidentified declarant, and the admission [of] this hearsay violated Appellant's right of confrontation as set forth in the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article II, §§ 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

A. The introduction of this evidence violated Appellant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him and state law rules regarding hearsay evidence.

B. This evidence was also inadmissible because it was irrelevant.

Proposition 4: The trial court committed fundamental error by failing to provide Appellant instructions on the defense of accident and misfortune, and thereby deprived Appellant of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, §§ 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Proposition 5: Admission of a highly prejudicial photograph of the victim's severed spinal column violated Appellant's due process rights under the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Proposition 6: Appellant was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's theatrics with a stick that he broke in front of the jury to speculatively simulate the breaking of the victim's spine. This improper display violated Appellant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Proposition 7: Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article II, §§ 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

A. Trial counsel failed to preserve the record for appellate review by failing to request necessary jury instructions and by failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.

B. Trial counsel failed to use evidence turned over to the defense in pretrial discovery to impeach Shannon Hicks.

Proposition 8: The trial court committed reversible error by refusing Appellant's request for instructions on the lesser related offense of Second Degree Murder. The trial court's refusal to provide this jury instruction violated Appellant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Proposition 9: The accumulation of error in this case deprived Appellant of due process of law and necessitates reversal pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

See Doc. 10-1. Petitioner also filed an application for an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Doc. 10-2. On July 15, 2013, in Case No. F-2012-446, the OCCA entered its unpublished summary opinion denying Petitioner's application for an evidentiary hearing and affirming the Judgment and Sentence of the district court. See Doc. 10-4.

Petitioner commenced the instant habeas corpus action by filing his petition on January 17, 2014. See Doc. 1. He identifies the same federal constitutional grounds of error raised on directappeal, but presents them in a different order.² See id. In response to the petition, Respondent addresses Petitioner's claims in the order presented in the petition and argues that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief on grounds 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); and that grounds 4, 5, 6, and 7 are matters of state law and are not cognizable on habeas corpus review. See Doc. 10.

ANALYSIS

A. Exhaustion

As an initial matter, the Court must determine whether Petitioner meets the exhaustion requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). Petitioner fairly presented all grounds of error to the OCCA on direct appeal. Therefore, the Court finds Petitioner satisfied the exhaustion requirement before filing his habeas petition.

B. Evidentiary hearing

The Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted as Petitioner has not met his burden of proving entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000); Miller v. Champion, 161 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 1998).

C. Claims adjudicated by the OCCA

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) provides the standard to be applied by federal courts reviewing constitutional claims brought by prisoners challenging state convictions. Under AEDPA, when a state court has adjudicated a claim, a petitioner may obtain federal habeas relief only if the state decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonableapplication of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101-03 (2011); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S....