The opinion of the court was delivered by: Landya McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge
Harold Oakes has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (doc. no. 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that his state conviction and present incarceration violate his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The petition is before the court for preliminary review, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts ("§ 2254 Rules").
Pursuant to § 2254 Rule 4, a judge is required to promptly examine any petition for habeas relief, and if "it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition." Id. In undertaking this review, the court decides whether the petition contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and cognizable in a federal habeas action. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) ("Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face." (citing § 2254 Rule 4)).
In November 2008, Harold Oakes was convicted by a jury, in the New Hampshire Superior Court at Grafton County, of three felony sexual assault offenses, and on January 28, 2009, was sentenced to 15-45 years in prison. Oakes filed a timely direct appeal in the New Hampshire Supreme Court ("NHSC"). The NHSC affirmed Oakes's conviction on December 7, 2010. See State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 286, 13 A.3d 293, 307 (2010).
On May 20, 2011, Oakes filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the New Hampshire Superior Court at Coos County. On or after October 7, 2011, the court denied Oakes's state habeas petition. Oakes filed a notice of appeal in the NHSC. The appeal was denied on January 25, 2012.
In the habeas petition pending before this court, Oakes has raised the following three claims for relief:
1. The admission of Oakes's inculpatory statements at trial violated Oakes's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because (a) Oakes was not advised of his Miranda*fn2 rights prior to making the statements; (b) the statements were involuntary, as Oakes was interviewed for hours, without lunch, and without an opportunity to take a break or leave the room to get his high blood pressure and diabetes medication, was followed to and from the bathroom, and the interview was conducted by a very aggressive police detective.
2. The admission of Oakes's inculpatory statements at trial violated Oakes's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because he was not advised of his Miranda rights prior to making the statements, although the circumstances of the interrogation so required.
3. Oakes's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process were violated by the admission of his involuntary statements at trial, while the jury was not allowed to hear evidence concerning ...