United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
Aiken United States District Judge
brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that his convictions and
sentence arising from sexual abuse charges violated ins
federal constitutional rights. For the reasons explained
below, the petition is denied.
an inmate at Two Rivers Correctional Institution, is
incarcerated pursuant to convictions for first-degree sodomy,
first-degree sexual abuse, and using a child in a display of
charges against petitioner arose from the sexual abuse of his
eight-year-old daughter in 1999. Resp. Ex. 104, Transcript of
Trial Proceeding (Tr.) 15-19. At the time, petitioner lived
overseas and had not seen his two daughters for several
years. Tr. 22, 38, 60, 75. He visited Oregon during the
summer of 1999, and for two weeks his eight-year-old daughter
stayed with him and his wife, Jane, in an RV park. Tr. 41-42,
51-52, 75. His eleven-year-old daughter also stayed with them
for approximately one week. Tr. 52.
weeks after returning from her visit with petitioner, the
youngest daughter told her mother that petitioner had
sexually abused her. Tr. 25-26, 83-84. According to testimony
at trial, Jane had alerted the victim's mother to the
potential abuse, and the victim eventually told her mother
about the sexual abuse after being assured that her mother
would not be angry with her. Tr. 25, 44, 83-84. The
victim's mother reported the abuse to the police. By that
time, petitioner had left the United States and local
authorities could not locate him, Tr. 114-115.
20, 2000, a grand jury indicted petitioner on felony counts
of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, Using a Child in a
Display of Sexual Conduct, and two counts of Sodomy in the
First Degree. Petitioner was also indicted on two misdemeanor
counts of Failure to Report as a Sex Offender. A warrant was
issued for his arrest. Resp. Exs. 102, 120 at 31, In 2006,
petitioner was arrested in Cambodia. Tr. 9, 116. To
effectuate his arrest, federal authorities issued an arrest
warrant against petitioner under 18 U.S.C, § 1073 and
then revoked his passport due to the federal warrant. Resp.
Ex. 120 at 1-5, 32-35. After his passport was revoked,
petitioner was arrested in Cambodia and brought to Los
Angeles, Petitioner then waived extradition proceedings and
was brought to Oregon to stand trial on the sexual abuse
charges. Resp. Ex. 120 at 30.
the jury was selected and sworn, petitioner addressed the
court and claimed that the U.S. Marshals Service arrested him
in Cambodia without "any extradition papers, "
prevented him from speaking with an attorney, and failed to
provide him with medical treatment. Tr. 9. Petitioner argued
that his removal from Cambodia violated his constitutional
rights and questioned whether his trial was
"legitimate" as a result. Tr. 10. Petitioner's
trial counsel informed the court that he did not believe a
valid legal basis existed for petitioner's argument, and
the trial court allowed the case to proceed. Tr. 11.
trial, several witnesses testified for the prosecution,
including the victim, who was 16 years old at the time of
trial, and Lieutenant Maureen Bedell, who interviewed the
victim in 1999 and 2000 as a detective assigned to the case.
Tr. 73-103, 104-120, Lt. Bedell testified that the victim
made several disclosures about the sexual abuse committed by
petitioner. Tr. 106-112. Lt. Bedell also testified that the
victim "demonstrated to my satisfaction that she knew
what - what it was to tell the truth and what it was to tell
a lie." Tr. at 110.
deliberating, the jury convicted petitioner of first-degree
sexual abuse, using a child in a display of sexual conduct,
and two counts of first-degree sodomy. Tr. 142-43; Resp. Ex
At the sentencing hearing, petitioner again raised the issue
of his removal from Cambodia. Tr. 149-50. Ultimately, the
trial court sentenced petitioner to a total of 270 months
imprisonment. Tr. 150-52; Resp. Ex. 101.
directly appealed his conviction and sentence. Resp. Ex.
106-07. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion,
and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Resp. Ex. 111-12.
Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief
(PCR), and the PCR court denied relief. Resp. Ex. 115-17,
137-38. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed in a written
opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Resp.
April 20, 2015, petitioner filed the instant petition seeking
federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
petition and subsequent amendments, petitioner raises sixteen
grounds for relief, many of them overlapping and duplicative.
See docs. 2, 32-1. Respondent argues that all claims
lack merit and that several are unexhausted and barred from
federal habeas review. I ...