Bradshaw v. State of Oklahoma

• Citation: 398 F. Supp. 838
• Decision Date: 25 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-335-C.,74-335-C.
• Parties: Thomas A. BRADSHAW, #87400, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.
• Court: United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Eastern District of Oklahoma

398 F. Supp. 838

Thomas A. BRADSHAW, #87400, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.

No. 74-335-C.

United States District Court, E. D. Oklahoma, Civil Division.

February 25, 1975.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Hardy Summers, Muskogee, Okl., for petitioner.

Edwin L. Gage, Asst. U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl., for respondent.

ORDER

DAUGHERTY, Chief Judge.

This is a proceeding for writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner who challenges the validity of the judgment and sentence of the District Court of Muskogee County, Oklahoma, in Case No. CRF-71-134. The respondents by and through the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma have filed the Response requested by the court and submitted in support thereof the original record and transcript of trial in petitioner's case.

From the court's examination of these records it appears that the petitioner was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Muskogee County in said case No. CRF-71-134 for the offense of obtaining property by false pretense. Pursuant to the verdict of the jury, the court on June 23, 1972 sentenced the petitioner to a term of 10 years imprisonment and fined him the sum of $5,000.00.

The petitioner has exhausted his state remedies by presenting all issues herein to the Oklahoma courts in his direct appeal and appropriate post conviction proceedings. The Opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on the direct appeal fully summarized the details of the evidence in the case and this court will refer to the evidence only as it may be pertinent to the disposition of the issues herein. See Bradshaw v. State, Okl.Cr., 510 P.2d 972.

As grounds for relief the petitioner alleges:

"(A). The court erred in failing to dismiss the case at the close of the state's evidence and at the close of the trial for the reason that there was no corroboration of the communication of the alleged oral false pretence.

(B) The court erred in failing to dismiss the case at the close of the state's evidence and at the close of the trial for the reason that the venue was in Cherokee County and not in Muskogee County.

(C) The court erred in failing to dismiss the case at the close of the state's evidence and at the close of the trial for the reason that the transfer of property alleged in the information was not pursuant to a reliance on the alleged false pretense.

(D) The court erred in failing to give defendants requested instructions 1 through 4.

(E) The court erred in giving instructions 7 and 11.

(F) The court erred in failing to grant a mis-trial due to improper closing arguments of the assistant District Attorney.

(G) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 1st grounds set out in his application for Post Conviction relief, for the reason that, The Case-made is deleted, it contains false statements and is not a true and correct copy of the trial proceedings. Thereby denying your petitioner his right to appeal from the record of conviction and due process of law.

(H) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 2nd grounds set out in his application for Post Conviction relief, for the reason that; The jury was prejudiced and bias against petitioner, thereby denying your petitioner his rights to a fair and impartial trial and due process of law.

(I) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 3rd grounds set out in his application for Post Conviction relief for the reason that, The trial judge was prejudice against petitioner and failed to perform his sworn duty. Thereby denying your petitioner his rights to a fair and impartial trial and due process of law.

(J) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 4th grounds set out in his application for Post Conviction relief for the reason that; defense counsel was inadequate and his ineffective aid was equivalent to no representation at all. Thereby denying your petitioner to a fair trial and due process of law.

(K) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 5th grounds set out in his application for Post Conviction relief for the reason that; The perjured testimony of the co-defendant, denied petitioner his rights to a fair trial and due process of law.

(L) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 6th grounds set out in his application for Post Conviction relief, for the reason that; The co-defendant was sentenced to a lesser punishment when he was equally guilty. Denying your petitioner his rights of Equal Protection and due process of the law.

(M) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 7th grounds set out in his application for Post Conviction relief, for the reason that; The perjured conflicting testimony of the prosecutrix denied your petitioner his rights to a fair trial and due process of law.

(N) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 8th grounds set out in the application for Post Conviction relief, for the reason that, There is a fatal variance between the information and the verdict in that the evidence supports some other crime not charged in the information, and the state did not attempt to prove the crime charged in the information. Thereby denying your petitioner his rights as set out in the 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the U. S.

(O) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 9th grounds set out in the application for Post Conviction relief, for the reason that; The court erred in giving instructions # No. 2 to the jury. Thereby denying your petitioner his rights to a fair trial and due process of law.

(P) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction on the 10th grounds set out in the application for Post Conviction relief, for the reason that this defendant was not allowed to be present at all stages of the proceedings, thereby denying your petitioner his rights to a fair trial and due process of law.

(Q) The court erred in failing to reverse the conviction, on prejudicial irregularities shown in the record. As brought out in the hearing on petitioners application for Post Conviction relief. Thereby further denying your petitioner due process of law.

(R) The court erred in that, all allegations and (grounds) presented in the application for Post Conviction relief were overruled without findings of fact or conclusions of law. Thereby denying your petitioner due process of law.

(S) The court erred in that; the court failed to issue a written order denying the relief prayed in the application for Post Conviction relief. Thereby denying your petitioner due process of law.

(T) The court erred in denying your petitioner his rights to subpoena witnesses at the evidentiary hearing. Thereby denying your petitioner his rights to a full evidentiary hearing and due process of law.

(U) The court erred in that the Dist. Judge conducting the evidentiary hearing was prejudice and bias against your petitioner and failed to give a fair and full hearing on the issues clearly presented in the application for Post Conviction relief and actually threatened bodily harm to your petitioner. Thereby denying your petitioner his rights to a full and fair hearing and due process of law.

(V) The court erred in that appointed counsel at the hearing for post conviction relief had no interest in aiding petitioners cause and refused his duty as advocate and his ineffective aid was in fact a determent to your petitioner. Thereby denying your petitioner his rights to a fair and full hearing and due process of law."

Preliminarily it may be observed that the petitioner apparently misconceives the scope of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus in the federal courts does not serve as an additional appeal from state court convictions. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). Federal habeas corpus relief is available to state prisoners only on denial by the state of federal constitutional rights. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254; Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); United States ex rel Little v. Twomey, 477 F.2d 767 (CA10 1973), cert. denied 414 U.S. 846, 94 S.Ct. 112, 38 L.Ed.2d 94; Mathis v. People of the State of Colorado, 425 F. 2d 1165 (CA10 1970). It is not available to review mere trial errors in criminal cases. Pierce v. Page, 362 F.2d 534 (CA10 1965).

The petitioner's complaints lettered R, S, T, U, and V, all relate to alleged defects in the state post conviction proceedings. These allegations do not raise a federal constitutional question. Curtis v. Perini, 301 F.Supp. 444 (D.C.Ohio 1968), affd 6 Cir., 413 F. 2d 546. There is no federal constitutional requirement that the state provide a means of post conviction review of state court convictions. See McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 14 S.Ct. 913, 38 L.Ed. 867 (1894) and Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956). The unavailability or adequacy of state post conviction procedures are material only in the context of exhaustion of state remedies on federally protected rights. Errors or defects in the state post conviction proceeding would not ipso facto render a prisoner's detention unlawful. Noble v. Sigler, 351 F.2d 673 (CA8 1965). As pointed out by the court in Stokley v. State of Maryland, 301 F.Supp. 653 (D. Md.1969):

"Even assuming that, as claimed by petitioner, there was some infirmity in his post-conviction proceedings, petitioner would not be entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on this ground inasmuch as such a claim represents an attack on a proceeding collateral to the detention of petitioner and not on the detention itself." (301 F.Supp. at 657).

See also Welborn v. Cox, 337 F.Supp. 16 (W.D.Va.1971).

The petitioner's complaints lettered A, B, and C are essentially that the evidence against him was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. It is well established that the sufficiency of evidence to support a state conviction raises no federal constitutional question and cannot...