Opinion ID: 3162608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Habeas Appeal

Text: In his § 2254 petition and brief, Mr. Johnson reasserted claims he had previously raised on direct appeal and in the applications for post conviction relief. Specifically, Mr. Johnson alleged that (1) the OCCA’s resolution of his Fourteenth Amendment claims was contrary to clearly established law, (2) his confessions should have been suppressed, (3) the trial evidence was insufficient to convict him for one of the robberies, (4) the trial court improperly allowed bolstering testimony by prosecution witnesses, and (5) he was denied effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Mr. Johnson also sought an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). The magistrate judge carefully reviewed the procedural posture of each of Mr. Johnson’s claims and concluded the state trial court and OCCA had considered each claim on the merits or had appropriately determined that the claims were procedurally defaulted on independent and adequate state law grounds. As a result, the magistrate judge recommended that Mr. Johnson’s petition for habeas relief be denied on all claims previously raised on direct appeal and in the first application for post conviction relief because Mr. Johnson had not shown that the state courts’ denial of these claims on the merits was contrary to or unreasonably applied controlling Supreme Court precedent. The 5 magistrate judge also recommended that the federal habeas proceedings not consider claims raised for the first time in Mr. Johnson’s second application for post conviction relief, which the state trial court and the OCCA had found were procedurally defaulted, because Mr. Johnson had not shown sufficient cause for the procedural default or prejudice arising therefrom, or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would occur if these claims were not addressed. Johnson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112323, at –. But the magistrate judge did not expressly address Mr. Johnson’s motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Mr. Johnson filed an Objection to the magistrate judge’s Report, which simply reiterated arguments he had previously asserted. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report in its entirety, denying Mr. Johnson’s § 2254 petition and, subsequently, his request for a COA. In his combined Opening Brief and Application for a Certificate of Appealability, Mr. Johnson raises many of the same issues he has raised at the various previous stages of this litigation. Mr. Johnson first argues the magistrate judge misconstrued his Fourteenth Amendment claim for illegal arrest by treating it as a Fourth Amendment claim and dismissing it based on Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 n.37 (1976) (holding that a state prisoner may not obtain federal habeas review of a Fourth Amendment claim where a state court has provided “an opportunity for a full and fair litigation of that claim”). Aplt. Br. 10–11. Even if the bar adopted in Stone applies, he argues the state trial court did not afford him a full and fair hearing. Id. at 12. Mr. Johnson next renews his various ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims, arguing the OCCA applied the 6 wrong standard in affirming the denial of these claims, id. at 11, 15, ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be procedurally defaulted or “waived” (as phrased by Mr. Johnson), id. at 5, 8–9, and that most of his claims have never been considered on the merits, id. at 10–11. Mr. Johnson also continues to argue that the “jurisdictional issues” he raised in his second application for post conviction relief could not be procedurally defaulted. Id. at 9, 16. Finally, he again seeks an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).