Meyer v. Crow ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 26, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
KURT ARTHUR MEYER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 22-6024
(D.C. No. 5:20-CV-01125-J)
SCOTT CROW, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before MORITZ, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Petitioner Kurt Meyer, an Oklahoma state prisoner appearing pro se, requests a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) so that he may appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Because Meyer has failed to satisfy the standards for issuance of a COA, we deny his
request and dismiss this matter. We also deny his recently filed motion for a hearing
and appointment of counsel.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the
case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 2
I
Meyer and his wife, Kathleen Wilkins-Meyer, owned a ranch and business in
Oklahoma. Wilkins-Meyer began to suspect her husband frequented prostitutes, and
in 2013, she filed for divorce. The divorce was acrimonious. Meyer stalked his
estranged wife and continued to frequent prostitutes. While proceedings were
pending, Wilkins-Meyer received possession of the house and Meyer received
possession of the adjacent ranch and related buildings. On November 14, 2014,
Wilkins-Meyer was discovered dead next to a ladder in the property’s tack room.
Meyer maintains she fell to her death changing a lightbulb or alternatively theorizes
that two or more prostitutes he frequented conspired to kill Wilkins-Meyer. The
State theorized that Meyer feared losing assets to her in the divorce, so he faked an
alibi, strangled Wilkins-Meyer to death, dragged her body into the tack room, and
badly staged the scene to make it look like an accidental death. The State based this
theory on overwhelming evidence, including handwritten notes in which Meyer
planned the murder, phone records, autopsy results, and obvious signs of foul play at
the scene.
Meyer was tried and convicted in Oklahoma state court of murder in the first
degree with deliberate intent. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed
his conviction on direct appeal. The state district court denied Meyer’s application
for state post-conviction relief, the OCCA remanded for entry of an order properly
setting out findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the state district court entered
2
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 3
such order again denying Meyer’s application. The OCCA affirmed. Meyer filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal court. On
November 15, 2021, a magistrate judge issued a thorough report and recommendation
recommending the petition be denied. Meyer objected, and on January 31, 2022, the
district court adopted the report and recommendation and denied the petition. Meyer
seeks a COA to appeal the dismissal of his § 2254 petition.
II
“A state prisoner whose petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied by a
federal district court does not enjoy an absolute right to appeal.” Buck v. Davis, 137
S. Ct. 759, 773 (2017). “Federal law requires that he first obtain a COA from a
circuit justice or judge.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)). To obtain a COA, a
state prisoner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requires the prisoner to “sho[w] that reasonable
jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000)). In other words, the prisoner must show that the district court’s resolution of
the claims was “debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
We review the district court’s legal analysis de novo. Smith v. Duckworth, 824
F.3d 1233, 1241–42 (10th Cir. 2016). A state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief
must show that the state court’s resolution of his or her claims (1) “was contrary to,
3
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 4
or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” or
(2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). “A state-court
decision is contrary to clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) if
it ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases
or confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of the
Supreme Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from that precedent.’”
Smith, 824 F.3d at 1241 (quoting Ryder ex rel. Ryder v. Warrior, 810 F.3d 724, 739
(10th Cir. 2016)). And a state court decision is an unreasonable application of
clearly established federal law if it “correctly identifies the governing legal rule but
applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner’s case.” Williams v.
Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407–08 (2000).
“[I]f the petitioner can show that ‘the state courts plainly misapprehend[ed] or
misstate[d] the record in making their findings, and the misapprehension goes to a
material factual issue that is central to petitioner’s claim, that misapprehension can
fatally undermine the fact-finding process, rendering the resulting factual finding
unreasonable.’” Id. at 1241 (alterations in original) (quoting Ryder, 810 F.3d at 739).
Because Meyer appears pro se, we construe his filings liberally, but we do not
serve as his advocate. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836,
840 (10th Cir. 2005).
4
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 5
III
Meyer is not entitled to a COA because reasonable jurists could not debate that
the district court correctly denied his petition. He asserts eight issues on appeal,
some of which overlap or collapse multiple grounds for relief under one heading. We
find none persuasive and will address each in turn.
A
In Issue One, Meyer asserts the trial court should have suppressed evidence
against him due to a November 14, 2014, warrantless seizure of two of his cellphones
and a later cell site location information (“CSLI”) analysis of a call made from a
different cellphone, which Meyer asserts was not his. “[W]here the State has
provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the
Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus
relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure
was introduced at his trial.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976). Meyer had a
full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in state court.
Counsel moved to suppress, the trial court held a hearing before denying suppression,
and counsel objected to the entry of the evidence at trial. He is not entitled to a COA
on this issue given the full examination of his Fourth Amendment claims in state
court.
B
In Issue Two, Meyer asserts the district court erred in determining that his
claims for abuse of discretion and bias, and for insufficient evidence, were
5
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 6
unexhausted or procedurally barred. In the district court, Meyer asserted a number of
arguments that this issue could be intended to address. He makes no effort to specify
which of those he pursues on appeal, nor does he make any effort to point us to the
portions of the record where he raised those claims in state court. Elsewhere, Meyer
goes into more detail on substantially the same issues, so we address his claims there.
C
In Issue Three, Meyer asserts the OCCA’s recitation of facts on direct appeal
contains errors and is therefore not entitled to deference. He also claims there were
multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct which occurred during his trial.
Like the district court, we can determine from the face of the OCCA’s opinion
that it did not base its substantive conclusions on the factual errors Meyer alleges.
Moreover, Meyer makes no effort to identify how these alleged factual errors could
have affected the OCCA’s resolution of his direct appeal, or how our refusing to give
deference to the OCCA’s rulings regarding the alleged factual errors might affect our
legal analysis.
Meyer claims comments by the assistant district attorney during voir dire and
closing arguments constitute prosecutorial misconduct. He raises additional claims
of prosecutorial misconduct regarding the assistant district attorney’s referring to
“murder notes,” misstating witness testimony, coaching a witness, and making other
statements and arguments regarding the presumption of innocence. Taken together,
Meyer claims he was denied a fair trial.
6
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 7
During voir dire, the assistant district attorney asked a prospective juror: “Do
you understand that that burden – that presumption [of innocence] goes away when
the evidence starts popping up?” ROA Vol. 1 at 423. Meyer’s counsel objected, and
the district attorney withdrew the question. Counsel also objected to the district
attorney asking if a prospective juror agreed with the statements: (1) “The
presumption of innocence doesn’t mean he’s innocent” and (2) “he is presumed
innocent? . . . That doesn’t mean he is innocent.” Id. at 423–24. The district court
overruled both objections. During closing arguments, the district attorney stated: “It
is the State’s burden to prove the defendant’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So
after you go back into that jury deliberation room and you deliberate this case, you
can begin to consider something other than the presumption of innocence.” Id. at
425. The defense objected, and the court told the assistant district attorney to “just
stick with the jury instructions.” Id.
The OCCA determined that the only misstatement of the law was withdrawn
and that one objection to the assistant district attorney’s correct statement of the law
was actually sustained. The OCCA took particular note of the trial court’s rulings on
defense counsel’s objections and correctly concluded the assistant district attorney’s
statements did not violate Meyer’s constitutional rights.
The reference to handwritten notes, in which Meyer apparently planned the
murder, as “murder notes” in the prosecution’s opening statement did violate an order
in limine, but the district court sustained Meyer’s objection, admonished the jury to
put the statement out of their minds, and threatened to sanction the prosecution if it
7
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 8
violated the pretrial order again. Other references were during closing argument, and
the order in limine only covered voir dire and opening statements. Meyer limits his
argument concerning prosecutorial misconduct to violation of the order in limine, and
the one violation identified is far from enough to constitute prosecutorial misconduct.
The other asserted instances of prosecutorial misconduct involve inartful
questioning by the assistant district attorney that fall far short of prosecutorial
misconduct. Meyer’s objections to both of those statements were sustained, curing
any potential error. The claim of witness coaching also falls far short of
prosecutorial misconduct as the supposed coaching did not suggest an answer to the
state’s witness.
Finally, Meyer makes the conclusory assertion that the prosecution “repeatedly
insert[ed] statements and arguments designed to diminish the presumption of
innocence during the trial” but does not specifically indicate what those statements
and arguments were. Aplt. Br. at 9. We assume Meyer is referring to the above
instances collectively, which for the reasons stated do not rise to the level of
prosecutorial misconduct and did not diminish the presumption of innocence set forth
in the jury’s instructions.
D
In Issue Four, Meyer argues the district court should not have given deference
to the state court’s determination that Meyer’s claim of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel was procedurally barred. He makes procedural arguments here and
raises related merits arguments elsewhere. It is doubtful that those claims were
8
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 9
“fairly presented” in state court. Fairchild v. Workman, 579 F.3d 1134, 1151 (10th
Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, we address those claims individually out of an abundance
of caution.
E
In Issue Five, Meyer asserts ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. A
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing of deficient
performance and resulting prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687 (1984). Meyer cannot show prejudice because, even if counsel had raised on
direct appeal all of the grounds now asserted, Meyer would not have been entitled to
relief.
Appellate counsel’s failure to amend Meyer’s appellate briefing in light of
Carpenter1 would not have entitled him to relief because he was not prejudiced by
any ineffectiveness. The fundamental fairness of the proceeding did not depend on
this issue when there was plainly probable cause for a CSLI warrant and there was
other evidence placing Meyer at the scene—chiefly, the testimony of Brandi
Henderson, a prostitute with whom Meyer had scheduled a meeting the night of the
murder, and who testified Meyer had her drop him off and pick him up near the scene
of the crime.
1
In Carpenter, the Supreme Court held “that an individual maintains a
legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured
through CSLI.” Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2217 (2018).
9
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 10
Meyer also asserts counsel was ineffective in not raising the following issues:
“abuses of discretion not raised in the direct appeal”; “instances of prosecutorial
misconduct, not raised in the direct appeal”; “law enforcement misconduct,
constituting malicious prosecution”; that there was an “illegal search and seizure of
telephone evidence, not raised in the direct appeal”; that he “was denied his
constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel”; that there was “insufficient
evidence to prove petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”; and that he “was
denied his fundamental right to be presumed innocent.” Aplt. Br. at 12–13 (emphasis
omitted). Rather than brief the issue, Meyer directs us to his state court filings. Even
examining these filings and assuming no procedural bar applies, appellate counsel’s
failure to raise these grounds could not have prejudiced Meyer.
The purported abuses of discretion pertain to the refusal of the preliminary
hearing judge to recuse himself because his mother, who was murdered, had the same
first name as the victim in this case and the refusal of the same judge to permit
examination of a witness at the preliminary hearing. The first ground is unpersuasive
because it is too tenuous a connection to show any bias. The second is unpersuasive
because preliminary hearings can conclude once the prosecution has established
probable cause. See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 258. All other asserted abuses of discretion
relate to matters that we address and find unpersuasive elsewhere.
The arguments regarding asserted prosecutorial misconduct are rejected for the
reasons stated herein. Moreover, the prosecution had no obligation to investigate
farfetched alternative theories given the clear evidence against Meyer.
10
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 11
Regarding cell phones, the record supports that the phones were seized under
exigent circumstances, namely the fear that Meyer could destroy them or delete data
in the time it would take to get a warrant, but that they were not searched for data
until later, after a warrant had been obtained.
In asserting ineffectiveness of his appellate counsel for failing to raise
ineffectiveness of his trial counsel, Meyer “acknowledges that his trial attorneys did
an excellent job of representing him at trial.” ROA Vol. 1 at 110. The asserted
deficiencies of trial counsel are minor, and raising them would not have altered the
outcome or affected the fairness of the proceedings. The record contains more than
sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, including obvious drag marks, signs
of strangulation, and notes in Meyer’s own handwriting planning the murder.
Finally, for the reasons discussed above, Meyer was not denied the
presumption of innocence and he was not prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to
raise those grounds on direct appeal.
F
In Issue Six, Meyer asserts that he is entitled to de novo review. As discussed
above, we review legal issues de novo and give deference to findings of fact except
where they are lacking evidentiary support. And here, any misstatements of fact did
not affect the outcome in state court. Moreover, Meyer has not asserted a distinct
ground for relief.
11
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 12
G
In Issue Seven, Meyer goes into more detail regarding the grounds for relief
asserted in Issue Two.
Meyer asserts he was improperly prohibited from calling a witness at the
preliminary hearing. But as discussed, the magistrate judge can end this hearing once
the prosecution has established probable cause. Meyer confuses the rights available
to him at trial with those that apply in a preliminary hearing.
Meyer takes issue with the state trial judge also presiding over the probate of
Wilkins-Meyer’s estate and the civil wrongful death suit filed against Meyer by
Wilkins-Meyer’s son from a previous marriage, including the judge issuing rulings in
those cases before Meyer’s criminal appeal was finalized. Nothing in the record
suggests presiding over multiple related matters biased the judge, however, and
judges often preside over related matters.
Meyer claims the trial judge should have allowed him to play the full video of
Henderson’s interrogation to show she was coerced into making up a story. But he
asserts no legal basis for the admission of that video, and other evidence such as
Meyer’s handwritten notes and cell phone records corroborates much of her story.
Meyer again asserts claims arising from the assistant district attorney’s
reference to “murder notes,” but we reject them for the reasons stated above.
Meyer claims the trial court should have denied the admission of enhanced
photographs showing drag marks. But photo enhancement is a common practice, and
Meyer was free to challenge the enhanced photos in cross examination.
12
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 13
Meyer asserts the trial court should not have allowed the prosecution to
present and argue facts not in evidence, specifically regarding Henderson’s testimony
placing Meyer near the scene of the crime and other testimony that shards of glass
were found on Wilkins-Meyer’s jacket. But this testimony was evidence. The fact
that the phone from which Henderson was called was never found, or that shards of
glass found on the deceased’s jacket were not presented to the jury are minor points
in the context of the evidence presented at trial. Moreover, Meyer’s contention that
if Henderson’s testimony about the call were true, she would be an accomplice, is
unpersuasive. Henderson could easily have dropped Meyer off and picked him up
without knowing that he planned to commit a murder.
Meyer reasserts prosecutorial misconduct. As discussed above, Meyer
presents no evidence to support this claim.
Meyer asserts that denial of all of his motions in limine to exclude expert
testimony is evidence of bias. While this briefing is threadbare, the more obvious
reason for the denial of these motions is that denying the motions was a permissible
decision. Examining Meyer’s state court briefing, which provides more detail, it is
clear that the issues Meyer had with the prosecution’s expert witnesses were fodder
for cross examination or closing argument but that permitting their testimony was
well within the trial court’s discretion.
Meyer claims the state court’s freezing of his assets prior to trial prevented
him from fully paying his attorneys and hiring necessary expert witnesses. But it
appears he received representation through his direct appeal, and courts have systems
13
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 14
in place to ensure indigent defendants can litigate their cases. He says nothing about
whether he sought such assistance or requested an exception to the freezing of certain
assets to fund his defense. Moreover, given the quantity and variety of evidence
against Meyer, it is unclear how having his own experts could have sufficiently
discredited the State’s case to the point of ultimately affecting the jury’s verdict.
Meyer also asserts that the state trial judge should have recused from his state
postconviction proceedings. She eventually recused herself, but Meyer contends the
decision came so late that it affected the court’s rulings on all his motions and
objections that preceded her recusal. As grounds for disqualification, Meyer asserts
the same allegations of bias he asserts elsewhere. Because we reject these
arguments, the record does not support a determination that the judge should have
recused herself earlier, so her timing was not improper. Moreover, it is doubtful that
the extensions she granted were unlawful or would have been denied by a different
judge.
Finally, Meyer claims appellate counsel was ineffective for not asserting
insufficiency of the evidence as grounds for reversal. We disagree. While Meyer
raises a number of challenges to the prosecution’s case, the evidence taken as a
whole paints a clear picture that Meyer murdered Wilkins-Meyer and badly staged
the scene to look like an accident. It cannot be said that “no rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Hale, 762 F.3d 1214, 1222–23 (10th Cir. 2014).
14
Appellate Case: 22-6024 Document: 010110689255 Date Filed: 05/26/2022 Page: 15
H
In Issue Eight, Meyer contends he should have been permitted leave to conduct
discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and counsel. Discovery is only granted “for good
cause.” Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. A hearing is only
allowed “[i]f the petition is not dismissed,” and counsel is typically only appointed if
a hearing is granted. Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. Meyer has
not shown good cause because, for the reasons discussed, none of the grounds
asserted for relief are persuasive. And the petition was properly dismissed, so he is
not entitled to a hearing or counsel.
IV
The application for COA is therefore DENIED. Accordingly, Meyer’s motion
for a hearing and appointment of counsel is DENIED. The matter is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
15