United States District Court, D. Oregon
Anthony D. Bornstein, Federal Public Defender's Office, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Petitioner.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Samuel A. Kubernick, Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice, Salem, Oregon, Attorneys for Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
PAUL PAPAK, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Casey Garland Snider brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and challenges his conviction and sentence for robbery. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus  should be denied, and Judgment should be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.
On April 5, 2007, the Clackamas County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Snider with one count of Robbery in the First Degree with a Firearm, two counts of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, two counts of Theft in the Second Degree and one count of Robbery in the Second Degree. Respondent's Exhibit 102. Following a bench trial, Snider was convicted on all counts and the sentencing court imposed a sentence totaling 160 months. Respondent's Exhibit 101.
Snider directly appealed his convictions and sentence, but the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court without a written opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. State v. Snider, 230 Or.App. 756, 217 P.3d 703 (2009), rev. denied 347 Or. 365, 222 P.3d 1091 (2009); Respondent's Exhibits 103-107.
Snider next filed for post-conviction relief ("PCR") in state court. The PCR trial court denied relief on his PCR Petition. Snider v. Coursey, Umatilla County Circuit Court Case No. CV101529. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals granted the State's motion for summary affirmance, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Respondent's Exhibits 120-127.
On July 26, 2013, Snider filed this action. His claims for relief as set forth in his Petition  are as follows:
1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Counsel failed to adequately question multiple witnesses at Petitioner's criminal trial, thus violating his Sixth Amendment rights, United States Constitution and Article One, Section Two of the Oregon Constitution....
a. Failed to attack the indictment;
b. Failed to present a plea agreement option;
c. Improperly directed [Petitioner] to proceed with bench trial; and
d. Failed to gain severance of Counts 1-3 from 4-6 which grossly prejudiced my case and trial.
2. Improper Joinder (Forced Joinder)
Was denied severance of Counts 1-3 (ROB 1st) from counts 4-6 (ROB 2nd), which occurred on separate dates, times, and locations... which is why I wanted them severed so as to testify to the ROB 2nd case and plea to the ROB 1st. This fact severely prejudiced my case. Not to mention the fact there was no weapon in the ROB 2nd case (backed up by multiple detectives' testimony, in trial). They testified to the fact that "there was no weapon seen" and also "there was daylight between defendant's fingers". this is why the original charge was Robbery in the 3rd...
3. Illegal Indictment
Per the original detective reports, as well as their sworn testimonies - the original charge was established as Rob in the 3rd. The Clackamas Co. Dist. Attorney trumped these charges up to: Rob in the 2nd. There is a huge difference twixt these two charges (50-months)... especially when the evidence supports a Rob 3rd... "no weapon seen" and also "daylight was seen between Mr. ...