Glasscock v. Taylor

Decision Date25 April 2017
Docket NumberCase No. 2:14-cv-016-SI
PartiesCHARLES FRANKLIN GLASSCOCK, Petitioner, v. JERI TAYLOR, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER

Anthony D. Bornstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700, Portland, OR 97204. Of Attorneys for Petitioner.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Kristen E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, 1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301. Of Attorneys for Respondent.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

Petitioner, an inmate at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 2) is DENIED.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2006, a Lane County grand jury indicted Petitioner on three counts of Rape in the First Degree, two counts of Unlawful Sexual Penetration in the First Degree, one count of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, five counts of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, one count of Felony Assault in the Fourth Degree, and one count of Menacing. Resp. Exh. 102. The case was tried to a jury, which convicted Petitioner on all counts. Resp. Exh. 101. The trial judge sentenced Petitioner to a total of 560 months of imprisonment. Resp. Exh. 101.

Petitioner filed a direct appeal, asserting eight assignments of error:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT: The trial court erred in granting the state's motion in limine prohibiting the defense from exploring a past act of Bonnie Glasscock and prohibiting defense from calling Julie Willoughby as a witness to that act.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT: The trial court erred when it allowed the prosecutor to make improper remarks in closing and rebuttal arguments.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT: The trial court erred in refusing to give defendant's requested jury instruction on defense of others.
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT: The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that ten or more of its members must agree on the same set of underlying facts in order to convict defendant of any count in the indictment.
FIFTH ASSIGNMENT: The trial court erred in failing to merge counts 7-11.
SIXTH ASSIGNMENT: The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on counts four and five.
SEVENTH ASSIGNMENT: The trial court erred in imposing a departure sentence on counts 8, 9, 10, and 11.
EIGHTH ASSIGNMENT: The trial court erred in imposing Measure 11 sentences.

Resp. Exh. 103, pp. B-D (summarized in the Table of Contents). The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. State v. Glasscock, 226 Or. App. 604, 205 P.3d 102, rev. denied, 346 Or. 590, 214 P.3d 822 (2009).

Petitioner then sought state post-conviction relief ("PCR"), alleging numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, as well as claims of trial court error. Resp.Exh. 108. Following an evidentiary hearing, the PCR trial court denied relief. Resp. Exhs. 146, 147. Petitioner appealed, alleging five assignments of error:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT: The PCR court erred in denying relief where Petitioner established trial counsel failed to object to the admission of the victim's hearsay statements where the state failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to offer those statements under Ore. R. Evid. 803.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT: The PCR court erred in denying relief where Petitioner established that trial counsel failed to object to an out-of-court statement of a medical diagnosis.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT: The PCR court erred in denying relief where Petitioner established trial counsel was inadequate and ineffective for not offering testimony from an expert on the subject of the significance of the state expert's physical findings.
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT: The PCR court erred in denying relief where Petitioner established that trial counsel was inadequate and ineffective for not offering testimony from an expert on the subject of the reliability of children's memories.
FIFTH ASSIGNMENT: The PCR court erred in denying relief where Petitioner established that trial counsel failed to object to improper statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments.

Resp. Exh. 149, pp. i-ii (summarized in the Table of Contents). The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied relief. Glasscock v. Franke, 258 Or. App. 534, 311 P.3d 527, rev. denied, 354 Or. 490, 317 P.3d 255 (2013).

On January 3, 2014, Petitioner filed his pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. Petitioner alleges eleven grounds for relief:

Ground One: Denial of Right to Counsel, witnesses in favor, and confrontation of adverse witnesses (6th Amnd.)
Supporting Facts: Petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to secure his counsel of choice, denied witnesses for his defense, and was subjected to hearsay of a declarant not at trial.
Ground Two: Insufficient evidence to sustain jury findings of guilty (14 Amend. Due Process).
Supporting Facts: The State of Oregon presented false material evidence and testimony and obtained a conviction based on false evidence denying petitioner due process and fundamental fairness.
Ground Three: Actual Innocence - Newly Discovered Evidence (14th Amend. Due Process)
Supporting Facts: Petitioner has newly discovered evidence of innocence that, if not reasonably considered by this court, "will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice."
Ground Four: Denial of a Meaningful Opportunity to Present a Complete Defense (14th Amend. Due Process).
Supporting Facts: The State moved to suppress/exclude defense evidence and witnesses. The trial court excluded defense evidence and allowed hearsay statements.
Ground Five: Trial court error - jury instructions (14th Amend. Due Process)
Supporting Facts: The court gave improper instructions and refused instructions that should have been allowed for the defense.
Ground Six: Denial of due process and a fair trial (14th Amend. Due Process)
Supporting Facts:
(a) [The prosecutor] used false evidence on material matters;
(b) [The prosecutor] engaged in improper conduct by making misrepresentations of material facts, vouched for the credibility of her witnesses, bolstered their testimony, gave unsworn testimony, referred to matters outside the record, denigrated the defense, verbally attacked defendant and called him a "liar," made burden shifting comments, commented on defendant's custody status, appealed to the passions/emotions of the jury and urged them to convict for an improper purpose, and misstated the law;
(c) [The prosecutor] withheld exculpatory evidence/Brady material.
Ground Seven: Denial of motion for a new trial (newly discovered evidence) (14th Amend. Due Process)
Supporting Facts: The court denied petitioner's motion without reaching its merits.
Ground Eight: Denial of effective counsel on direct appeal (14th Amend. Due Process)
Supporting Facts: Appellate counsel failed to raise as error:
(a) the state's expert testimony made comments on the credibility of the complainant;(b) trial court error in allowing jury instructions "testimony false in part" against defendant;
(c) trial court's denial of petitioner's motion for new trial without reaching the merits.
Ground Nine: Violation of due process where the state obtained a judgment denying Petitioner's PCR claims by the use of false material evidence depriving Petitioner of due process and fundamental fairness (14th Amend. Due Process)
Supporting Facts: The state used false evidence (again) and trial counsel committed perjury regarding events at the trial level.
Ground Ten: Denial of effective assistance of trial counsel (6th Amendment).
Supporting Facts:
(a) trial counsel failed to move for severance of improperly joined charges;
(b) trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and bring to trial evidence that would have affected the outcome of trial;
(c) trial counsel failed to obtain defense expert exams (psychological/medical);
(d) trial counsel failed to utilize expert defense testimony;
(e) trial counsel failed to advocate for evidence suppressed by the state and excluded by the court;
(f) trial counsel failed to object to the Rule 803 violations;
(g) trial counsel failed to properly object and prevent hearsay testimony;
(h) trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutorial misconduct by the prosecutor;
(i) trial counsel failed to zealously advocate for Petitioner when he alerted the jury to Petitioner's custody status and conceded guilt;
(j) trial counsel failed to move for a new trial after new evidence was discovered by Petitioner and confirmed by trial counsel's investigator.
Ground Eleven: The cumulative effect of the errors specified in the previous claims (1-10) combined to deprive Petitioner of due process (14th Amend. Due Process).
Supporting Facts: The facts contained in the supporting facts of the foregoing claims (1-10) are realleged and incorporated herein.

ECF 2 at 6-9.

In his counseled brief in support of the Petition, Petitioner does not address all of the claims alleged. Petitioner's brief does not specifically identify the claims addressed, but the arguments presented by Petitioner appear to correlate with claims alleged in Ground One, Ground Four, Ground Six (subpart b), Ground Ten (subparts (a), (c), (f), and (h)), and Ground Eleven.

Respondent contends relief should be denied on the claims alleged in Grounds One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten (subparts (a), (b), (d), (e), (g), (i), and (j)) because those claims were not fairly presented to the state's highest court and are now procedurally defaulted. Respondent argues relief should be denied on the claims alleged in Grounds Two, Three, Five, Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten (subparts (b), (d), (e), (g), (i), and (j)) because Petitioner did not address those claims in his brief, and has failed to meet his burden of proof. Finally, Respondent argues that, to the extent the claims alleged in Grounds Four, Six, Ten (subparts (a), (c), (f)...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT