RONALD A. WHITE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is a pro se prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections ("DOC") who is incarcerated at Union City Community Corrections Center in Union City, Oklahoma. He is challenging the execution of his sentences imposed in Stephens County District Court Case No. CF-2009-320, Stephens County District Court Case No. CF-2011-106, and Grady County District Court Case No. CF-2010-216.
Petitioner also claims he has suffered a violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy, because his sentences have been amended multiple times, with the DOC starting and stopping his sentences in Stephens County Case No. 2011-106 and Grady County Case No. 2010-216 at least twice (Dkt. 1 at 4). He asserts that if the sentences had not stopped running, he could have completed his sentences on or around December 4, 2015. Id.
Respondent has filed a response to the petition, alleging Petitioner's sentences are being properly administered, and there has been no violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause (Dkt. 14). The record shows that Petitioner was received into the DOC on June 8, 2012, to serve seven sentences of incarceration from Stephens and Grady Counties:
Petitioner alleges his sentences have been unclear since sentencing (Dkt. 1 at 10). The Judgment and Sentence ("J&S") for Stephens County Case No. CF-2009-320 ordered the 5year sentence for Count 2 is to run concurrently with the 15-year sentence for Count 1 (Dkt. 1-2 at 1). He claims, however, that the Judgments and Sentences for Stephens County Case Nos. CF-2010-35B and CF-2010-46 ordered all Stephens County Cases to run concurrently (Dkts. 1 at 10; 1-2 at 2-3). Petitioner maintains this sentencing ordered in Case Nos. CF-2010-35B and CF-2010-46 equated to a 15-year sentence with all cases running concurrently to the 15-year sentence imposed in Case No. CF-2009-320, Count 1. Id.
On November 15, 2012, Petitioner wrote a letter to Jim Rabon, DOC Sentence Administrator, stating Petitioner believed he received sentences totaling 15 years' imprisonment for the Stephens County convictions (Dkt. 14-10 at 1). Petitioner understood that his Grady County sentences would run concurrently, meaning he would not serve any time in addition to the 15 years. Id. When he arrived at DOC, however, Petitioner was advised that although his sentencing was unclear, his total length of incarceration was calculated as 30 years. Id. at 1-2. Petitioner supplemented the letter on November 26, 2012, stating his Judgments and Sentences did not conform to his understanding of his plea agreements. Id. at 3. Mr. Rabon responded to Petitioner's letter on January 30, 2013:
(Dkt. 14-11).
According to the Oklahoma State Courts Records website at www.oscn.net, on March 20, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion requesting an amended Judgment and Sentence in Grady County District Court Case Nos. CF-2010-94 and CF-2010-216.
On August 8, 2013, the Grady County District Court entered an Amended Order Nunc Pro Tunc, stating that the agreement between the parties as to the Judgments and Sentences in Case Nos. CF-2010-94 and CF-2010-216 was "not completely clear" (Dkt. 14-13). Upon agreement of the parties, Petitioner's sentences in Grady County District Court Case Nos. CF-2010-94 and CF-2010-216 again were ordered to run concurrently with Stephen County Case Nos. CF-2009-320, CF-2010-46, CF-2010-35, and CF-2011-106. Id. Petitioner also was given credit for the 196 days he spent in the Grady County Jail. Id.
On June 3, 2014, and June 23, 2014, Petitioner sent letters to the DOC Sentence Administration Auditor, requesting another clarification of his sentence and claiming he was entitled to immediate release (Dkt. 14-14). The response to Petitioner's letters, dated June 25, 2014, stated:
(Dkt. 14-15).
The record shows that when Petitioner was received into DOC custody on June 8, 2012, he began serving his 15-year sentence for Stephens County CF-2009-320, Count 1. According to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections website at https://www.ok.gov/doc, the sentence for CF-2009-320, Count 1 was discharged on May 8, 2017, and the 10-year consecutive sentence in Stephens County Case No. CF-2011-106 began on that same date.
Respondent alleges there is no indication that Stephens County CF-2011-106 ever was started and then stopped. This assertion is supported by Petitioner's Consolidated Record Card for his Stephens County convictions, which is the only official document that keeps a record of Petitioner's time for the Stephens County cases (Dkt. 14-2). In addition, Petitioner's Consolidated Record Card for his Grady County convictions has no indication that Grady County CF-2010-216 ever has started and stopped (Dkt. 14-3).
As for Petitioner's double jeopardy claim, he alleges his sentences in Grady County Case No. CF-2010-216 and Stephens County Case No. CF-2011-106 have been amended multiple times, resulting in the sentences starting and stopping multiple times through no fault of his own (Dkt. 1 at 4). He asserts these sentences should have run concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of 15 years that would have been completed on or around December 4, 2015. Id. at 10. The record shows these two sentences actually have been run concurrently, however, Stephens County No. CF-2011-106 also was ordered to run consecutively to Petitioner's other Stephens County cases.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person shall. . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb[.]" In Warnick v. Booher, 425 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 2005), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals explained:
Warnick, 425 F.3d at 847.
Petitioner makes no argument that his punishment exceeds what the legislature intended. Instead, he alleges his sentence adjustments have upset his legitimate expectation of finality of his sentences.
As discussed above, the J&S for Stephens County Case No. CF-2009-320 ordered Petitioner to serve a 15-year sentence for Count 1 (Dkt. 14-4). The J&S for Grady County Case No. 2010-216 sentenced him to 10 years for Count 2, concurrent with Stephens County Case No. CF-2011-106 (Dkt. 14-9). In Case No. CF-2011-106, Petitioner was sentenced to 10 years' incarceration, consecutive to his other Stephens County sentences (Dkt. 14-7). Pursuant to the Amended Order Nunc Pro Tunc entered by the Grady County District Court, Petitioner's two Grady County sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the Stephens County cases (Dkt. 14-3). Contrary to Petitioner's unsupported claim, there is no evidence that the service of his sentences for Stephens County CF-2011-106 or Grady County CF-2010-216 ever stopped and restarted.
Petitioner's habeas corpus claims are premised on his belief that pursuant to his plea agreements, he had a total of 15 years to serve in prison (Dkt. 1 at 10). The DOC, however, must administer the sentences as set forth by the courts, not based on Petitioner's understanding of the plea agreements. The Grady County District Court reduced Petitioner's total length of incarceration by changing the two Grady County convictions from consecutive 5-year and 10-year sentences to concurrent sentences totaling 10 years (Dkt. 14-13). The 10year sentence for Stephens County Case No. 2011-106 always has been a 10-year sentence, consecutive to Stephens County Case Nos. CF-2009-320, CF-2010-35B, and CF-2010-46 (Dkt. 14-7). The record clearly shows that Petitioner was required to serve a total of 25 years' incarceration. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court finds Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
The Court further finds Petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In addition, he has not "demonstrate[d] that reasonable jurists would find [this] court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Therefore, Petitioner must be DENIED a certificate of appealability.
