midpage
492 F. App'x 920
10th Cir.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Maixner, an Oklahoma prisoner, seeks a COA to appeal a §2254 habeas denial.
  • Maixner was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, attempted aggravated eluding a police officer, felon-in-possession, and resisting arrest.
  • Total sentence is 33 years; he appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied relief.
  • He then filed a federal habeas petition raising Batson, sufficiency of the evidence, and involuntary statements claims.
  • A magistrate recommended denial; the district court adopted the recommendation; Maixner appeals pro se.
  • The court grants a COA standard and dismisses the appeal.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Batson challenge viability Maixner contends race-based peremptory strikes. State argues no prima facie case of discrimination shown. OCCA's Batson ruling not unreasonable under Batson.
Sufficiency of the evidence Evidence insufficient for guilt on eluding and felon-in-possession. Evidence supports elements under Jackson v. Virginia. OCCA's sufficiency decision not contrary to clearly established law.
Admission of statements Statements were involuntary due to hospital condition and treatment. Voluntariness found by state court; Miranda rights given. OCCA correctly applied voluntariness standard; admission proper.

Key Cases Cited

  • Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court 1986) (race-based peremptory challenges require neutral explanation after prima facie showing)
  • Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (Supreme Court 1991) (equal protection in jury selection beyond Batson)
  • Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court 2000) (AEDPA review standard for state-court decisions)
  • Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for jury verdicts)
  • In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (Supreme Court 1970) (due process standard for reasonable doubt)
  • Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (Supreme Court 1993) (totality-of-the-circumstances in voluntariness review)
  • Saiz v. Ortiz, 392 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2004) (prima facie Batson showing and appellate review)
  • Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court 2005) (state court factual determinations under AEDPA)
  • Sims v. State, 762 P.2d 270 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) (firearm possession element interpretation under Oklahoma law)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Maixner v. Rudek
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Date Published: Aug 6, 2012
Citations: 492 F. App'x 920; 12-6043
Docket Number: 12-6043
Court Abbreviation: 10th Cir.
Log In