Wood v. McCollum

Decision Date02 February 2016
Docket NumberCase No. CIV-13-628-M
PartiesMICHAEL W. WOOD, Petitioner, v. TRACY MCCOLLUM, Warden, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Michael W. Wood, an Oklahoma prisoner appearing pro se, petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1) at 5-6.2 Respondent filed his Answer and brief in opposition (Doc. No. 13) along with the relevant state-court records (see Doc. No. 15), to which Petitioner replied (Doc. Nos. 19, 20). United States District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange has referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). As outlined herein, the undersigned recommends that the Petition be denied in part and dismissed without prejudice in part.

BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2008, Petitioner was charged in a felony Information with one count of first-degree murder. Pet. at 15; Pet'r's OCCA Br. (Doc. No. 13-1) at 24, Wood v. State, No. C-2011-548 (Okla. Crim. App. filed June 21, 2011). The charge stemmed from Petitioner's alleged involvement in the January 2005 disappearance and presumed death of Donovan Nimmo. An Amended Supplemental Information was filed in November 2008, adding a page reflecting Petitioner's two prior felony convictions in Oklahoma state court. Pet. at 15. In January 2009, the State filed a Special Bill of Particulars giving notice of its intent to seek the death penalty against Petitioner if he was convicted of first-degree murder. See Mot. Hr'g Tr. 20, State v. Wood, No. CF-2008-44 (Blaine Cnty. Dist. Ct. June 13, 2011) (Doc. No. 15) (conventionally filed). The trial court soon thereafter appointed Craig Corgan from the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System's ("OIDS") capital trial division to represent Petitioner. Id.; Pet. at 16. According to Petitioner's testimony, Mr. Corgan advised Petitioner that, based on his review of the State's evidence, he thought it was "a possibility" that Petitioner would be sentenced to death if he went to trial. Mot. Hr'g Tr. 21.

The State offered Petitioner a plea agreement shortly after Mr. Corgan entered the case. See id. at 28-29, 30-31; Pet'r's OCCA Br. at 32. The proposed agreement called for Petitioner to plead guilty to first-degree murder and to assist law enforcement in recovering Mr. Nimmo's body. See Resp't's Ex. 4 (Doc. No. 13-4) at 1-4, Guilty Plea Form, State v. Wood, No. CF-2008-44 (Blaine Cnty. Dist. Ct.); Mot. Hr'g Tr. 28-29, 30-31 (Petitioner's testimony that the State's original offer was "the same offer" that heultimately accepted). In exchange, the State would "drop [the] death penalty" upon the trial court's acceptance of Petitioner's guilty plea. Guilty Plea Form at 4; see also Plea Hr'g Tr. 2, State v. Wood, No. CF-2008-44 (Blaine Cnty. Dist. Ct. July 22, 2010) (Doc. No. 15); Mot. Hr'g Tr. 28-29, 30-31. The parties also stipulated that they would recommend that the court sentence Petitioner to life in prison with or without the possibility of parole, depending on whether Petitioner's information led to the recovery of Mr. Nimmo's remains. Guilty Plea Form at 4; see Mot. Hr'g Tr. 28-29, 30-31. Petitioner initially rejected the proposed plea agreement against Mr. Corgan's advice because he wanted to go to trial. See Mot. Hr'g Tr. 28-29, 30-31; Pet'r's OCCA Br. at 32-33.

Petitioner retained new counsel, Irven Box, in February 2010. Pet. at 4. Petitioner testified that he hired Mr. Box due to Petitioner's disagreement with Mr. Corgan's recommendation that he plead guilty. According to Petitioner, Mr. Box told Petitioner that he "ultimately . . . would receive the death penalty if [he] went to trial" and strongly urged Petitioner to take the State's original offer. See Mot. Hr'g Tr. 13, 14, 16, 21, 30-31; Pet'r's OCCA Br. at 33; OCCA Op. Den. Cert. (Doc. No. 13-2) at 4-5, Wood v. State, No. C-2011-548 (Okla. Crim. App. Nov. 29, 2012) ("[Petitioner] conceded that he was presented with the same plea offer by both his appointed counsel and his retained counsel.").

A. Guilty Plea and Direct Appeal

Petitioner appeared with Mr. Box for a change-of-plea hearing before the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma, on July 22, 2010. The district court engaged Petitioner in the following colloquy before accepting his guilty plea:

THE COURT: Mr. Wood, Mr. Box has handed me a form. It's entitled plea of guilty/summary of facts as it applies to CF 08-44 as amended by striking the bill of particulars.
Would you raise your right hand the best that you can? (Defendant sworn.)
THE COURT: Mr. Wood, did you with the aid and assistance of Mr. Box fill out this form?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anybody force you, threaten you, or coerce you to do that?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is this a free and voluntary act on your part?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you understand that if the Court accepts this you are entering a plea of guilty to this offense?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you further understand that the offense as amended carries two possible punishments; one is life without parole and the other is life with the possibility of parole, but that life with a possibility of parole is what is called an 85 percent crime and you must serve 85 percent of that term which the Department of Corrections has determined to be 45 years? Do you understand that you must serve 85 percent before being eligible for parole? Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There also appears on this form a signature and Mr. Wood, I would ask you, is that your signature right here?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: At that time you signed that did you understand that you were swearing that the answers to all the questions contained therein were true and correct?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Based on that the Court will find that you have freely, knowingly, and with aid of counsel entered this plea and will accept it.

Plea Hr'g Tr. 2-4.

The Form that the district court reviewed in open court—which contained Petitioner's actual guilty plea and admission that he "commit[ted] the acts as charged in the Information"—contained Petitioner's sworn statements affirming that he understood the constitutional rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, as well as the potential penalties he faced if the court accepted his guilty plea under the terms of this agreement.3 See Guilty Plea Form at 1-4. The final page also contained the district court's express findings that Petitioner was "competent for the purpose of this hearing" and "underst[ood] the nature, purpose and consequences of this proceeding." Id. at 6.

On October 14, 2010, the district court sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Pet'r's Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 4-1) at 2, J. & Sent., State v. Wood, No. CF-2008-44 (Blaine Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Petitioner promptly filed two pro se motions in the trial court seeking to appeal his conviction and sentence. See Pet'r's Ex. 2 (Doc. No. 4-2) at 2-4, Pro Se Mots. filed Oct. 19 and 20, 2010, State v. Wood, No. CF-2008-44 (Blaine Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Petitioner alleged that he "never murdered" anyone and that he "fe[lt] . . . coerced into agreeing to the blind plea" because he was medicated and he feared being sentenced to death if he went to trial. See id. The district court construed Petitioner's filings as motions to withdraw his guilty plea and appointed new counsel to represent Petitioner at an evidentiary hearing.4 See Pet'r's Ex. 8 (Doc. No. 4-8) at 11-13, Order Den. Mot. to Withdraw Guilty Plea, State v. Wood, No. CF-2008-44 (Blaine Cnty. Dist. Ct. June 14, 2011). At the hearing on the motions, the judge found that Petitioner "failed to present sufficient evidence for the Court to grant his request" to withdraw the guilty plea, which the court found to be "free and voluntary" and otherwise "entered validly" by Petitioner. Mot. Hr'g Tr. 45. The district court denied Petitioner's motions in a written order the next day. See Order Den. Mot. to Withdraw Guilty Plea at 12.

Petitioner, represented by new court-appointed counsel, next filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the OCCA. See generally Pet'r's OCCA Br. at 1-51. His brief raised five grounds for relief under both federal and state law:

Proposition 1: The district court failed to establish on the record that Petitioner was competent to plead guilty, resulting in acceptance of a guilty plea that was "not voluntary, knowing and intelligent";
Proposition 2: Petitioner's guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary either because Mr. Box "affirmatively misrepresent[ed]" the amount of time that Petitioner would spend in prison, or because Mr. Wood "misunderst[ood]" Mr. Box's advice regarding the potential length of Mr. Wood's prison sentence;
Proposition 3: The district court did not properly establish that Petitioner's guilty plea was supported by an adequate factual basis;
Proposition 4: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel when he entered his guilty plea and in his effort to withdraw his plea because both attorneys failed to investigate Petitioner's mental state on the date of the plea hearing; and
Proposition 5: The errors in Petitioner's case cumulatively deprived him of a fair hearing and due process of law.

See id. at 25-30, 31-34, 35-39, 39-48, 48-49. Petitioner asked the OCCA to issue a writ of certiorari allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial on the first-degree murder charge or to have his sentence favorably modified, or that he receive another hearing on his request to withdraw his plea. See id. at 49.

The OCCA affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence in an opinion entered November 29, 2012. OCCA Op. Den. Cert. at 1, 12. Petitioner's conviction became final for federal habeas purposes 90 days later, when Petitioner's time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired. See Pet. at 5;...

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