Grant v. Workman
| Decision Date | 02 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 05-CV-0167-TCK-TLW |
| Parties | JOHN MARION GRANT, Petitioner, v. RANDALL G. WORKMAN, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
JOHN MARION GRANT, Petitioner,
v.
RANDALL G. WORKMAN, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.
Case No. 05-CV-0167-TCK-TLW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
FILED: December 2, 2010
This matter comes before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 12) filed by Oklahoma death row inmate John Marion Grant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Grant, who appears through counsel, challenges his conviction and sentencing in Osage County District Court, Case No. CF-99-28. Respondent filed a Response (Dkt. # 18), Grant filed a Reply to the Response (Dkt. # 24), and Respondent also submitted a Response to the allegations of inadequate state procedural bar contained within Grant's Reply (Dkt. # 28-1). Grant also submitted a Supplement to his Petition (Dkt. # 39; see also Dkt. # 38 (Order construing Grant's "Amended Petition" as a supplement to his Petition)). Respondent filed a Response to the Supplement (Dkt. # 42) and Grant submitted a Reply (Dkt. # 45). The state court record has been produced.1 The Court considered all of these materials in reaching its decision. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds the Petition should be denied.
Page 2
As a preliminary matter the Court notes that Randall G. Workman is now the Warden at Oklahoma State Penitentiary. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that Randall G. Workman is the proper substituted Respondent and the Court Clerk shall be directed to note such substitution on the record.
I. Factual Background
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), the historical facts found by the state court are presumed correct. In considering the issues presented in the Petition, the Court relied upon the following synopsis from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ("OCCA") in that court's first opinion on direct appeal. Following review of the record, trial transcripts, trial exhibits, and other materials submitted by the parties, the Court finds this summary by the OCCA is adequate and accurate. Therefore, the Court adopts the following summary as its own: 2
On November 13, 1998, Grant savagely and repeatedly stabbed Gay Carter, a food service supervisor at the Connor Correction[al] Center in Hominy, Oklahoma. Grant used a prison-made "shank" similar to a sharpened screwdriver. Grant was serving a total of one-hundred thirty (130) years for four separate armed robberies and had been in prison for about twenty years prior to this offense. On a previous stay at Connor Correctional Center, Grant had worked in the kitchen and he knew Carter; however, Grant lost this job because he was fighting with another inmate.
The morning of and the morning before this murder, Grant and Carter argued over the breakfast tray served to Grant. The previous morning Grant told Carter, "I'll get you bitch, " and the morning of the murder Grant stated, "Your [sic] mine." Inmates Jerry James and Ronald Kuykendall, who held jobs in the dining area, witnessed these arguments.
Page 3
After the last argument, James and Kuykendall saw Grant loitering in a storage area where cleaning supplies were kept, adjacent to the main dining area. Carter left the dining area to go to another building where the kitchen was located. When she returned, Grant grabbed her and pulled her into a mop closet. Inside the closet, Grant stabbed Carter numerous times in the chest while holding her mouth closed.
Witnesses summoned Sergeant Daniel Gomez, the first Correctional Officer to arrive. Gomez saw Grant still struggling with Carter. Grant then stood up and faced Gomez, looked at him with a vacant stare, and ran across the dining hall to the storage room, while still carrying the shank in his hand. Grant shut the door, closing himself inside.
After Grant left the mop closet, medical personnel arrived to aid Carter. They found that she was not breathing, and they could not find any vital signs. Carter was transported to the hospital, but efforts to revive her were unsuccessful. Medical Examiner Robert Hemphill determined that Carter died as a result of sixteen stab wounds. Carter's aorta was punctured, causing rapid blood loss resulting in her death.
The storage room to where Grant fled, has a wire mesh ceiling through which Correctional Officer Tony Reeves observed Grant. Grant ignored orders to lie down on the floor. Grant held the shank to his chest and ran into the wall, apparently in an attempt to stab himself. A special team of correctional officers entered the storage room and Grant made stabbing motions toward the officers. The officers were able to subdue Grant with the use of an electrical shock device.
Grant v. State, 58 P.3d 783, 789 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002), vacated, Grant v. Oklahoma, 540 U.S. 801 (2003).
II. Procedural History
Grant challenges his conviction and sentencing in Osage County District Court Case, No. CF-99-28. He was tried by jury and convicted of first degree murder. The jury found the following three aggravating circumstances: "The defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person"; "The murder was committed by a person while serving a sentence of imprisonment on conviction of a felony"; and "The existence of a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to
Page 4
society." See id. at 788 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.7). The jury recommended a death sentence. In accordance with the jury's recommendation, the Honorable J.R. Pearman sentenced Grant to death.
On direct appeal, Petitioner raised fifteen propositions of error. The OCCA affirmed his conviction and sentence. Grant v. State, 58 P.3d 783 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002) ("Grant I").Grant subsequently filed an application for post conviction relief, which was denied in an unpublished decision on April 14, 2003 in OCCA Case No. PCD-2002-347.
On October 6, 2003, in Grant v. Oklahoma, 540 U.S. 801 (2003), the United States Supreme Court granted Grant's petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case back to the OCCA for further consideration in light of Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003).
On remand, the OCCA again affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court determining no relief was required based on the application of Wiggins to Grant's case. Grant v. State, 95 P.3d 178 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) ("Grant II").
On March 25, 2005, Petitioner initiated this habeas corpus proceeding with the filing of a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. # 1). Grant's Petition (Dkt. #12) was filed October 20, 2005, challenging Petitioner's judgment and sentence of death. Grant identifies the following twelve (12) grounds for relief:
Ground I: Trial counsel's failure to investigate and present readily available evidence in mitigation about neglect and abuse suffered by Mr. Grant as a child denied Mr. Grant effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Ground II: Mr. Grant was denied rights conferred by state law in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution when the trial court failed to excuse a venireperson for cause and Mr. Grant was required to expend a peremptory challenge to cure the trial court error.
Page 5
Ground III: The state used a "human shackle" to restrain Mr. Grant before the jury venire violating his right to a fair trial as protected under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Ground IV: In violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Mr. Grant was denied a fair and reliable sentencing when the trial court found, and the OCCA affirmed, that evidence sufficient to support instruction on an insanity defense was insufficient to support instructions on the lesser included offenses of second degree murder or manslaughter.
Ground V: Using Mr. Grant's prior convictions to support two aggravating circumstances was duplicative and skewed the jury's balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors violating Mr. Grant's rights as protected by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Ground VI: The victim impact evidence which explicitly called for Mr. Grant's execution exceeded what is constitutionally permissible and violated Mr. Grant's right to a fundamentally fair sentencing proceeding guaranteed by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Ground VII: The continuing threat aggravator is unconstitutional on its face and as applied and its application in this case rendered Mr. Grant's sentence of death invalid as violative of the requirements for an individualized sentencing determination set forth in the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Ground VIII: In violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, Mr. Grant's right to confront the witnesses against him was abridged when he was denied full cross-examination of State's witness Fred Smith.
Ground IX: All factual findings essential to the jury's authority to impose the...
To continue reading
Request your trial