Darreld D. Lewis v. David Rogers, Interim Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss Darreld D. Lewis’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The court concludes that Lewis’s challenge to the interpretation and application of Oklahoma’s concurrent-sentencing statute raises a noncognizable state-law issue; alternatively, any Fourteenth Amendment due process claim was not exhausted in state court. The court denies a certificate of appealability and orders substitution of the interim warden as respondent.

Holdings

1. A claim concerning the state courts' interpretation or application of Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 976, including whether the statute permits modification of consecutive sentences, is a matter of state law and does not state a cognizable federal habeas claim.
2. Lewis's allegations could be construed as asserting a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment due process claim based on an allegedly arbitrary denial of a state-created liberty interest.
3. The construed due process claim was unexhausted because Lewis did not fairly present the substance of that federal constitutional claim to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
4. The court did not reach respondent's statute-of-limitations argument because the petition was dismissible for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim or, alternatively, because the due process claim was unexhausted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lewis's challenge to the state courts' interpretation and application of Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 976 stated a cognizable federal habeas claim.
2. Whether Lewis's allegations could be construed as a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim based on the arbitrary denial of a state-created liberty interest.
3. Whether any construed federal due process claim was exhausted in the Oklahoma courts.
4. Whether the court should reach respondent's statute-of-limitations defense.

Disposition

dismissed