Walker v. Patton
671 F. App'x 703
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Walker pleaded guilty (a blind plea) to multiple Oklahoma charges arising from an assault on his domestic partner and received concurrent life sentences.
- He moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court denied the motion and Walker appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA).
- The OCCA found one conviction violated Oklahoma’s prohibition on multiple punishments (Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 11), reversed and ordered dismissal of that count, and rejected Walker’s claim that appellate correction cured any trial-counsel error on that point.
- Walker later filed state post-conviction relief raising other ineffective-assistance claims; the OCCA denied relief on those claims.
- In federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Walker asserted a federal Double Jeopardy Clause claim and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not raising the double-punishment/double-jeopardy issue; the magistrate and district court denied relief, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker raised a federal Double Jeopardy Clause claim in state court (exhaustion) | Walker contends he raised double jeopardy in his OCCA appeal from denial of plea-withdrawal | State argues Walker’s OCCA briefing relied on Oklahoma statutory/constitutional law and did not invoke the U.S. Double Jeopardy Clause | Held: Walker failed to fairly present a federal double jeopardy claim to state courts; exhaustion not satisfied |
| Whether Walker’s unexhausted double jeopardy claim should be dismissed or treated as procedurally defaulted | Walker implies federal review should proceed | State argues Oklahoma post-conviction rules would now bar the claim, creating procedural default | Held: Claim is procedurally defaulted because state court would now deem it barred and Walker did not show cause and prejudice or miscarriage of justice |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the double-punishment issue in the trial court | Walker asserts counsel’s omission was ineffective assistance | State contends any counsel error was remedied when OCCA ordered dismissal of the duplicative conviction | Held: On these facts, the OCCA’s dismissal cured the claimed error at the state level; federal habeas review of a Double Jeopardy claim is barred by default |
| Whether district court erred in denying § 2254 relief | Walker argues district court wrongly denied habeas relief on double jeopardy and counsel claims | State defends denial based on non-exhaustion and procedural default | Held: Affirmed — habeas relief denied for failure to exhaust and procedural default |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland v. Sirmons, 459 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining exhaustion, fair presentation, and procedural-default principles in federal habeas review)
- Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996) (fair presentation requires reference to specific federal constitutional guarantee and supporting facts)