Freisinger v. Keith, 473 F. App'x 846

Freisinger, an Oklahoma prisoner, filed §2254 in the Western District of Oklahoma; district court denied relief.
He pleaded guilty to multiple counts of first- and second-degree rape, attempted rape, and sexual abuse of a child.
He moved to withdraw his plea; the court denied it and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed.
He pursued postconviction relief which the state court denied and the OCCA affirmed.
In §2254 proceedings, he asserted four claims but the court liberal-ly construed them to two claims focusing on the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea.
The district court denied relief, the magistrate recommended denial, and this court denied a COA and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the plea knowing and voluntary given medication?	Freisinger argues Celexa caused confusion ruling plea not knowing.	State court found plea knowing; no credible evidence medication affected understanding.	No debatable issue; passage affirmed, plea valid.
Did the court err by not inquiring into medication timing before denying withdrawal?	Celexa use undisclosed; court failed to probe medication timing.	OCCA found no error; court thoroughly reviewed plea and understanding.	No error; investigation not required; no evidentiary hearing warranted.

Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA deference; unreasonable application standard explained)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (S. Ct. 2000) (COA standard for substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right)
Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA deferential review for state-court adjudications)
Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371 (9th Cir. 2002) (claims of psychotropic medication effects on plea not credible)