Plater v. Harpe
| Decision Date | 16 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | CIV-21-1092-HE |
| Parties | RAHEEM LA'MONZE PLATER, Petitioner, v. STEVEN HARPE, Director,[1] Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Raheem La'Monze Plater (“Petitioner”) seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). United States District Judge Joe Heaton referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). (Doc. 4). Petitioner filed an Amended Brief (Doc. 49) and other supplemental briefing (Docs. 11, 41, 43) in support of the Petition. Respondent filed a response (Doc. 19), along with portions of the record, including a preliminary hearing transcript , the jury trial transcript (Trial Tr.), exhibits (State's Ex.), the sentencing transcript (S. Tr.), and the state trial court record (R.). (Doc 21).[2]For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner's application for habeas relief be DENIED.
At the time of the events at issue, Petitioner was an adult resident of California, temporarily in the state of Oklahoma, with multiple prior felony convictions. (Trial Tr., at 197-201). A.C. was a 15-year-old ward of the state of Oklahoma who had run away from her group home in early 2018. (Id. at 99; State's Ex. 2).
Law enforcement was unable to find A.C. for either the preliminary hearing or the trial. (Trial Tr., at 247). A.C.'s statements to Lawton Police Officer Dustin Kellog and to Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (“SANE”) Rhonda Finney were admitted, as well as information she gave to Lawton Police Detective Rachel Flores during a forensic interview. (See infra).
Officer Kellog testified that, on the evening of September 5, 2018, he responded to a call of “a juvenile in fear for her life” at an area near an apartment complex. (Trial Tr., at 110-13). He found A.C., who was “very emotional, crying, upset.” (Id. at 113). A.C. told Officer Kellog that “she was in fear of a man that she had been sold to, of shooting her.” (Id.) A.C. also told Officer Kellog that “she had been there a couple of days and had been drugged and sold to this man and that he was performing sexual acts on her.” (Id. at 113-14).
Detective Flores testified that she conducted a forensic interview with A.C. that same night and returned to the area where the officers made contact with her. (Id. at 127). Detective Flores explained that she had A.C. point to the apartment building where she had been held captive, and when Detective Flores knocked on one of the doors, Petitioner answered. (Id. at 128). Detective Flores identified Petitioner as the man who had sexually assaulted A.C. based on the physical description given by A.C. during the forensic interview. (Id.) Officer Kellog then transported A.C. to a facility to receive a sexual assault examination. (Id. at 114-15, 127).
The sexual assault examination was conducted by SANE Finney. (Id. at 95). SANE Finney testified that A.C. stated she and three other girls had run away from the group home where they were housed, when they met a man named Vince who asked if they smoked “cigarettes, weed, or anything else.” (Id. at 99). A.C. said yes, and she and Vince did two lines of an unknown drug, before the girls went with him to his house. (Id.) A.C. explained that then things “became a blur.” (Id.) A.C. stated that “Vince was trying to get with her, touching her, shooting her up, giving her more lines” and threatening to kill her and another girl. (Id.)
SANE Finney testified that A.C. said she was then taken to a house owned by a man named Leroy, and that Leroy “was going to rape her, but some guy came in and paid $2,000 for her so she went with him.” (Id.) SANE Finney further testified:
They had oral and vaginal intercourse in his car. Then they went to the Motel 6 and continued there. She left the next day, but he found her and brought her back and forced her to have sex with him again repeatedly. She states he took her to Texas and everywhere to make deposits. They returned to his trap house where he continued to have sex with her intermittently. They smoked weed. He wanted her to perform oral sex, and she refused. He became very angry. So she ended up doing it anyway. At one point he went to a back room. When he demanded sex again from the back room, [A.C.] ran out of the house and found an old man and told him to call 911. He came running after her and said, “Hey, you forgot your shoes.” Then the cops came.
Petitioner testified at trial. (Id. at 197). Petitioner admits that he had sex with A.C. on multiple occasions, but states he believed she was an adult. (Id. at 218). In his testimony, Petitioner testified that he came to Oklahoma to be around his girlfriend in her last trimester of pregnancy. (Id. at 201). Petitioner claims that he first encountered A.C. at Leroy's house on September 2, 2018, in Lawton, Oklahoma. (Id. at 201, 205, 213). Petitioner claims A.C. “said she didn't want to be in the house,” so Petitioner threatened Leroy with a gun and removed A.C. from the home. (Id. at 205). Upon entering the car, Petitioner claims A.C. told him she was homeless, that her parents (about whom he inquired) were “gone,” and that she was eighteen. (Id. at 205-06). Petitioner claims he took A.C. first to his girlfriend's home and then to the Motel 6 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (Id. at 206-07). Petitioner then had sex with A.C. on multiple occasions between September 3, 2018, and September 5, 2018, when he was arrested. (Id. at 213, 218). Petitioner testified that he “didn't find out [A.C.] was 15 until six hours before [he] got arrested.” (Id. at 214).
Petitioner's cell phone contained two videos of Petitioner having sex with A.C. (Id. at 148-151; State's Ex. 8). Petitioner's cell phone also contained several text messages indicating his intention to have sex with a minor and knowledge that A.C. was a minor at the time of their sexual encounters. (Trial Tr., at 161-165; State's Ex. 9). On September 2, 2018, before Petitioner's first encounter with A.C., Petitioner received the text: “So, bro, you still got the youngster?” (Trial Tr., at 161; State's Ex. 9). Petitioner replied, (Trial Tr., at 162; State's Ex. 9). Petitioner then indicated that he was looking for “another one” and “something younger” “with more meat in her bones.” (Trial Tr., at 163; State's Ex. 9). Petitioner then received the text, (Trial Tr., at 164; State's Ex. 9). Petitioner gave the assurance that he would “bring the money in the morning.” (Trial Tr., at 165; State's Ex. 9). He later received a text saying, “Now you owe me two grand.” (Trial Tr., at 166; State's Ex. 9). Detective Flores testified that the information in Petitioner's text messages corroborates the account that A.C. gave in her forensic interview that Petitioner agreed to “buy” A.C. for $2,000. (Trial Tr., at 160-170).
The State charged Petitioner in Comanche County District Court, Case No. CF-2018-490, with one count of rape in the second degree (Count One), and one count of possession of juvenile pornography (Count Two). (R., at 31). At the conclusion of the two-day trial, the jury found Petitioner guilty of both counts and recommended life imprisonment on each. (Trial Tr., at 254; R., at 133-34). The trial judge sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment on each count, to run consecutively. (S. Tr., at 6). Petitioner filed a direct appeal with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) and requested an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (Doc. 19, at Exs. 1-2). The OCCA affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence and denied his application for evidentiary hearing. (Id. at Ex. 5, at 34).
Petitioner filed an Application for Post-Conviction Relief in Comanche County District Court. (Id. at Exs. 6-7). The court denied the application. (Id. at Ex. 8). On appeal, the OCCA affirmed the decision to deny Petitioner's application. (Id. at Ex. 11). Petitioner then filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). The Petition is at issue.
“The standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (‘AEDPA') guide [this Court's] review of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 applications.” Wellmon v. Colo. Dep't of Corrs., 952 F.3d 1242, 1245 (10th Cir. 2020). “When a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or statelaw procedural principles to the contrary.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 99 (2011). A petitioner is entitled to federal habeas relief only if that merits-based adjudication “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “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). “It is the petitioner's burden to make this showing and it is a burden intentionally designed to be difficult to meet.” Owens v. Trammell, 792 F.3d 1234, 1242 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). This standard “reflects the view that habeas corpus is a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102-03 (internal quotation marks omitted).
This court...
To continue reading
Request your trial