Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00266/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00266-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

PAMELA HOOKS PETITIONER

v. NO. 5:15-cv-00266 KGB/PSH

WENDY KELLEY, Director of the RESPONDENT

Arkansas Department of Correction

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent to United

States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of

this Recommendation. If you do so, the objections must: (1) specifically explain the

factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this

Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may

waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 12
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

I. STATE PROCEEDINGS. Petitioner Pamela Hooks (“Hooks”) got into a physical

altercation with her boyfriend, John Davis (“Davis”), during which he collapsed. Hooks

called 911 and began performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Davis, but he died.

Hooks was charged in an Arkansas state trial court with “murdering Davis in the

first degree” and “went to trial on that charge and some lesser-included charges (seconddegree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide).” See Hooks v. State, 2013 Ark.

App. 728, 431 S.W.3d 333, 334 (2013). At trial, the following occurred:

... a primary issue was Davis's poor heart health. The forensic

pathologist who performed the autopsy, Dr. Charles Kokes, testified that

Davis had several preexisting heart conditions, including a main artery that

was 90% blocked. Dr. Kokes testified that Davis died of a heart attack that

was caused by the stress and physical exertion brought on by his fight with

Hooks. Dr. Kokes told the jury that Davis incurred sixty-eight separate

injuries—including cuts, scratches, scrapes, and “superficial” stab

wounds–to his arms, hands, face, and head. Some of those injuries were

consistent with defensive wounds. Dr. Kokes also testified that none of

Davis's injuries were life-threatening. “[Y]ou take a healthy individual and

inflict the same type of injuries on them, at most, you're probably looking

at a trip to the emergency room and some stitches but they would

otherwise be alright.” The official cause of death was “complications of

cardiac arrest due to physical struggle, multiple superficial injuries and

arterial sclerotic cardiovascular disease.” Dr. Kokes classified Davis's death

as a homicide.

The State alleged that Hooks murdered Davis by cutting him with

scissors, which caused an increase in Davis's heart rate and blood pressure

and resulted in his death. According to the State Crime Lab's tests, scissors

that were recovered from the apartment were stained with Hooks's and

Davis's blood.

-2-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 12
Without objection, the jury also heard about the couple's prior

troubles. Police officer John Alberson testified during the trial that he

arrested Hooks in 2008 after he found Davis with several lacerations on his

head and his nose hanging off his face. Officer Alberson said that Hooks told

him when he arrested her that “she was attempting to kill [Davis] and if she

didn't do it, she was going to have somebody do it for her.” Hooks testified

too, admitting that she had pled guilty to first-degree battery for the 2008

incident that Officer Alberson described. She also described to the jury the

events surrounding Davis's death. Hooks said that, before he died, Davis hit

her in the back of the head with a skillet and then held her around her

neck. She said that Davis's injuries were caused by her grabbing some

broken glass and a piece of broken plate and “hitting him blindly” as she

tried to free herself. According to Hooks, Davis suddenly stopped fighting

and collapsed. When he didn't get up, Hooks called 911 and tried to

resuscitate him. Hooks testified that nobody, including herself, knew that

Davis, who was sixty years old when he died, had coronary-artery disease.

The State offered no evidence that either Hooks or Davis knew about his

heart condition.

Hooks also testified about her personal relationship with Davis. She

told the jury that she called him “Daddy” and they had an open sexual

relationship that sometimes turned violent. Hooks said that she and Davis

were fighting over her involvement with another man the day Davis died.

... Hooks moved for a directed verdict on the first-degree murder

charge and the lesser-included charges. The circuit court granted her

motion on the first-degree-murder charge. The court denied the rest of her

motions and instructed the jury on second-degree murder, manslaughter,

negligent homicide, and the self defense of justification. The jury found

Hooks guilty of committing second-degree murder ...

See Id. at 334-335. Hooks was sentenced as an habitual offender to the custody of

respondent Wendy Kelley (“Kelley”), the Director of the Arkansas Department of

Correction. Hooks appealed her conviction to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. It found no

reversible error and affirmed her conviction. See Id.

-3-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 3 of 12
Hooks then filed a state trial court petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to

Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. The petition was denied, and she appealed the

denial of her petition. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of her petition.

See Hooks v. State, 2015 Ark. 258, 465 S.W.3d 416 (2015).

II. FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS. Hooks commenced this case by filing a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 and joining Kelley. In the petition, Hooks

challenged her conviction and advanced the following three claims: 1) she is actually

innocent because she acted in self-defense, 2) the evidence of her intent to commit

second-degree murder was insufficient, and 3) her right to a speedy trial was violated.

Kelley filed a response to Hooks’ petition. In the response, Kelley asked that the

petition be dismissed because Hooks’ first and third claims are procedurally barred from

federal court review, and her second claim was reasonably adjudicated by the state

Court of Appeals.

Hooks filed a reply to Kelley’s response. In the reply, Hooks re-addressed each of

her claims and attempted to explain why she is entitled to relief. She maintained that

Davis died of a heart attack and not as a result of anything she did, and the State of

Arkansas failed to prove the essential elements of second-degree murder beyond a

reasonable doubt.1

 Hooks also maintained that her right to a speedy trial was violated.

1

In the State of Arkansas, a person commits second-degree murder when she knowingly causes the

death of another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life

or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of any person.

See Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-103.

-4-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 4 of 12
III. HOOKS’ FIRST CLAIM. Hooks’ first claim is that she is actually innocent because

she acted in self-defense. Specifically, she alleges the following:

I incurred head wounds, cuts, and bruises, along [with glass ground] in my

feet (no shoes) from this attack. Mr. Davis was a strong man and he refused

to release me or stop striking me. When I finally broke free he continued

to come at me. This continued until he collapsed. The very things he was

using to hurt me are what I grabbed to defend myself. Shards of broken

plates and scissors. I was fighting for my life. Immediately after he

collapsed, I called 911 and began CPR. This is evidence I did not intend to

harm/kill him. His heart killed him–not me.

See Pleading 2 at 5.

The state Court of Appeals addressed the sufficiency of the evidence on direct

appeal, but Kelley maintains that “its analysis did not focus on the self-defense argument

that [Hooks] makes in her current petition.” See Pleading 7 at 4 n.3. Because the selfdefense claim was not raised in state court, Kelley maintains that the claim is

procedurally defaulted. Kelley maintains that Hooks has failed to show why her default

should be excused, and the claim is thus procedurally barred from federal court review.

Kelley may be correct. Although Hooks challenged the sufficiency of the evidence

on direct appeal, she did not do so on the ground that she acted in self-defense. Instead,

she maintained that the State of Arkansas failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she

repeatedly cut Davis with the purpose of causing him serious physical harm. Rather than

determine whether Kelley is correct, the undersigned will simply bypass the procedural

bar question and address the merits of Hooks’ claim.

-5-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 5 of 12
“Constitutionally, sufficient evidence supports a conviction if, ‘after viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” See

Garrison v. Burt, 637 F.3d 849, 854 (8th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original) [quoting Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)]. If, in addressing such a claim, the state appellate

court made findings of fact, they are accorded deference. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d).

Additionally, a state appellate court’s conclusion will not be disturbed unless it was

“both incorrect and unreasonable.” See Garrison v. Burt, 637 F.3d at 855 [quoting Cole

v. Roper, 623 F.3d 1183, 1187 (8th Cir. 2010)].

The state Court of Appeals summarized the evidence of Hooks’ guilt in affirming

her conviction. The Arkansas Supreme Court also summarized the evidence of her guilt

in affirming the denial of her Rule 37 petition. It is not necessary to repeat those

summaries, save to note the following facts. A police officer testified that Hooks once

said she had attempted to kill Davis and would see to it that he was killed. A forensic

pathologist testified that Davis incurred sixty-eight separate injuries in the forms of cuts,

scratches, scrapes, and superficial stab wounds to his arms, hands, face, and head. Some

of the wounds were consistent with defensive wounds. A pair of scissors was recovered

from the scene of the struggle, and Davis and Hooks’ blood was on the pair of scissors.

The pathologist classified the manner of death as “homicide caused by complications of

cardiac arrest brought on by the physical struggle with Hooks and arterial sclerotic

cardiovascular disease.” See Hooks v. State, 465 S.W.3d at 418.

-6-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 6 of 12
The record reflects that Hooks testified at trial. See Pleading 8, Exhibit B at

000453-000490. She testified that although she was romantically involved with Davis,

they had an open relationship and saw other people. On the day of the incident, he

confronted her about another man she had been seeing, a man Davis found unacceptable.

Hooks claimed that the confrontation turned violent when Davis hit her with a plate and

then a skillet. She fell to the floor, at which time he jumped on her back and put his arm

around her neck. A struggle ensued during which she admitted striking him repeatedly

with broken pieces of a plate and glass. Hooks denied having scissors.2

 At some point

during the struggle, he stopped fighting and collapsed. Although she initially believed him

to be faking an injury, she soon realized that he was not. She immediately called 911 and

began cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Davis, but her attempts to revive him were

unsuccessful. He died sometime thereafter. On direct and cross examination, Hooks

maintained that she was defending herself from Davis’ attack.

After the close of the evidence, the jury was instructed on, inter alia, the charge

of second-degree murder. See Pleading 8, Exhibit B at 000719. The instruction provided

that the State of Arkansas was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hooks,

with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to Davis, caused his death. The jury

2

When asked about expert testimony that Davis’ wounds were consistent with

being created by scissors, Hooks said she did not have any scissors, she did not know

where the scissors were, she did not know the scissors were found in the kitchen in a

drawer, and she did not know how scissors got in the kitchen drawer or how long they

had been there. Hooks could not explain how her blood and Davis’ blood got on the

scissors found in the kitchen drawer. See Pleading 8, Exhibit B at 000471-000473.

-7-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 7 of 12
was also instructed on Hooks’ right to defend herself. The instruction provided, in part,

the following:

Pamela Hooks asserts as a defense to the charge of Murder in the

Second Degree that physical force was necessary to defend herself. This is

a defense only if:

First: Pamela Hooks reasonably believed that John Davis was using

or was about to use unlawful physical force upon her; and

Second: Pamela Hooks only used such force which she reasonably

believed to be necessary.

...

Pamela Hooks, in asserting this defense, is required only to raise a 

reasonable doubt in your minds. Consequently, if you believe that this 

defense has been shown to exist, or if the evidence leaves you with a 

reasonable doubt as to her guilt of Murder in the Second Degree, then 

you must find her not guilty.

See Pleading 8, Exhibit B at 000722, AMCI 2d 704.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State of Arkansas, and

giving the state appellate courts’ findings of fact due deference, any rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable

doubt. Hooks’ assertion of self-defense justification was a jury question, and the jury

could and did choose to reject the defense and convict her. Specifically, the jury could

believe that she had previously harmed Davis and had threatened to kill him. Given her

use of a pair of scissors,3

 the manner in which she used them, and the number and

3

In her petition for writ of habeas corpus, Hooks states that she did in fact use

scissors. See Pleading 2 at 5.

-8-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 8 of 12
location of the wounds she inflicted on his body, the jury could believe that Hooks, with

the purpose of causing Davis serious physical injury, caused his death.

IV. HOOKS’ SECOND CLAIM. Hooks’ second claim is that the evidence of her intent

to commit second-degree murder was insufficient. Specifically, she alleges the following:

Mr. Davis initiated the attack. He used items to harm me: dishes, pan, and

scissors. None of this would have happened if he had not grabbed [me] from

behind, [tried] to strangle me, and so. Neither of us knew of his health

issue. All of his wounds were superficial. The wounds on his face, hands,

and arms were there because I was striking blindly behind myself trying to

get free. As the person attacked to begin with, I was responding, defending

myself. My only “conscious objective” was survival. He would not stop

until–stop fighting–until he collapsed.

See Pleading 2 at 6.

On direct appeal, the state Court of Appeals addressed the sufficiency of the

evidence of Hooks’ intent to commit second-degree murder. The appellate court applied

a substantial evidence standard and rejected Hooks’ claim, finding the following:

Having considered the record as a whole and the caselaw applying

the applicable murder statute, we hold that substantial evidence supports

the jury's finding that Hooks acted with the purpose to seriously injure

Davis. As we stated earlier, a jury may infer criminal intent in light of the

surrounding circumstances, including the use of a deadly weapon, the

manner in which the weapon was used, and whether it was calculated to

cause serious bodily injury. [Citation omitted]. And here, the jury could

have reasonably inferred that Hooks intended to seriously injure Davis

because she used scissors, an instrument that may be a deadly weapon. See

Johnson v. State, 326 Ark. 3, 929 S.W.2d 707 (1996) (holding that scissors,

when used to stab someone, were a deadly weapon). The cumulative

number of injuries (sixty-eight) gives rise to the inference that she intended

serious harm. Some of those injuries were defensive wounds. Most of the

-9-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 9 of 12
injuries were inflicted to vital parts of Davis's body, his face and head. And

had Davis lived, these injuries may have caused scarring or permanent

disfigurement, or at least the jury could have so inferred from the

photographs and testimony received during the trial.

We are also mindful that the jury was not required to believe Hooks's

side of the story. [Citation omitted]. Indeed, the jury apparently did not

because it rejected the lesser charges and her affirmative defense of

justification. Also ripe for the jury's consideration and weighing was Officer

Alberson's testimony that Hooks told him that she had wanted to kill Davis.

Hooks also told the jury that she was in love with another man and that she

had seriously injured Davis with scissors before.

See Hooks v. State, 431 S.W.3d at 336-337.

Hooks’ claim is governed by 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), which requires a two-part inquiry.

First, it requires an inquiry into whether the state court’s adjudication of the claim

resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,

clearly established federal law. Second, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) requires an inquiry into

whether the state court’s adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was based

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

Hooks has not shown that the state Court of Appeals’ adjudication of her challenge

to the sufficiency of the evidence resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved

an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Although the state

appellate court did not specifically cite federal law, the failure of the appellate court

to do so is not problematic for two reasons. First, the substantial evidence standard used

by the state Court of Appeals is not inconsistent with Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307

(1979). See Dansby v. Norris, 682 F.3d 711, 717-718 (8th Cir. 2012) [reversed on other

-10-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 10 of 12
grounds, Dansby v. Hobbs, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2767, 186 L.Ed.2d 215 (2013)]. Second,

neither the state Court of Appeals’ reasoning nor result contradict federal law.

Hooks has also not shown that the state Court of Appeals’ adjudication of her

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence resulted in a decision that is based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. The state

Court of Appeals could and did find the evidence sufficient, specifically finding that “...

substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Hooks acted with the purpose to

seriously injure Davis.” See Hooks v. State, 431 S.W.3d at 336.

V. HOOKS’ THIRD CLAIM. Hooks’ third claim is that her right to a speedy trial was

violated. Specifically, she alleges the following: “I spent 18 1⁄2 months in [a] county jail

awaiting trial because they set my bond at $1 million [dollars].” See Pleading 2 at 18.

Kelley maintains that Hooks’ third claim was never raised in state court, and the

claim is therefore procedurally barred from federal court review. Although Kelley may

be correct, the undersigned will simply bypass the procedural bar question and address

the merits of Hooks’ claim.

The undersigned accepts that Hooks spent eighteen and one-half months in custody

awaiting trial for Davis’ murder. Hooks’ claim warrants no relief, though, because she has

not shown what caused the delay in her trial. She does not allege, and there is no

evidence, that the delay was attributable to the State of Arkansas.4

4

Liberally construing Hooks’ pro se petition, she appears to also allege that her trial attorney failed

to provide adequate representation because he was not prepared for trial, failed to object to evidence of

-11-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 11 of 12
VI. RECOMMENDATION. Given the foregoing, it is recommended that Hooks’

petition be dismissed, all requested relief be denied, and judgment be entered for

Kelley. It is also recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied.

DATED this 17th day of December, 2015.

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Hooks and Davis’ past problems, failed to present facts in mitigation, and failed to advise Hooks of plea

negotiations. Although three of Hooks’ four assertions are likely procedurally barred from federal court

review, they warrant no relief. She has failed to allege how counsel was unprepared for trial, why evidence

of Hooks’ past problems with Davis was inadmissible, what facts counsel failed to present in mitigation,

or whether a plea bargain was even offered by the State of Arkansas.

-12-

Case 5:15-cv-00266-KGB Document 11 Filed 12/17/15 Page 12 of 12