Maness v. Patton, 5:15-cv-01108

Petitioner Bobby Maness, a pro se state prisoner, challenges his conviction in Jefferson County for second-degree rape by instrumentation for touching and possibly penetrating nursing-home resident Minia Holloway on June 24, 2013. He received a 15-year sentence and $2,500 fine; the OCCA affirmed on direct appeal.
Ms. Holloway, a nursing-home resident with cognitive/mental limitations, testified Petitioner grabbed her, directed her to the closet area, had her raise her blouse/undo her pants, inserted a finger into her vagina despite her telling him to stop, and that it hurt. Staff observed post-incident behavioral changes and bruising/redness.
Petitioner gave oral and written statements to police admitting touching her breasts, rubbing her, and possibly penetrating her, but later at trial denied the conduct and claimed prior statements were made when he was angry.
Defense witnesses testified favorably to Petitioner’s character and suggested Ms. Holloway was not upset; the trial was to the bench (judge as factfinder). The trial judge also questioned witnesses.
Petitioner raised five habeas grounds on direct appeal and in the §2254 petition: (1) insufficient evidence re lack of consent/force, (2) unreliable/uncorroborated victim testimony, (3) trial judge bias from questioning witnesses, (4) excessive sentence, and (5) cumulative error. The federal district court denied habeas relief and a COA, applying AEDPA deference to the OCCA’s opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Maness)	Defendant's Argument (State / OCCA)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (force/consent)	State failed to prove lack of consent or use/threat of force	Victim testimony, staff observations of bruising/behavioral change, and Maness’s own statements corroborate nonconsensual touching	Denied — evidence sufficient under Jackson and OCCA’s review; AEDPA double deference applied
Reliability/corroboration of victim testimony	Holloway’s mental limits, inconsistencies, and lack of clarity undermine conviction	Inconsistencies minor; corroboration from staff and petitioner’s statements support verdict	Denied — inconsistencies do not render testimony insufficient; corroboration exists
Alleged judicial bias from judge questioning witnesses	Judge’s questions were designed to favor the State and denied impartial tribunal	Oklahoma law permits judicial questioning; the questions sought clarification and truth; trial was bench trial	Denied — no bias shown; questioning within reasonable bounds and appropriate in bench trial context
Excessive sentence	15-year sentence is shockingly excessive	Sentence within statutory limits; OCCA reviewed and declined modification	Denied — sentence lawful and not reviewable on federal habeas when within statutory limits

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (AEDPA deference and scope of review)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA’s formidable barrier to federal habeas relief)
Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (double deference in sufficiency review)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (reasonableness standard under §2254(d))
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (objective unreasonableness standard)
Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650 (Jackson claims and deference)
Boltz v. Mullin, 415 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. on limited appellate review of factfinder’s determinations)