Edwards v. Poppell , 48 F. App'x 714 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 27 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ALLEN CASEY EDWARDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 02-6004
v. (D.C. No. CIV-00-1301-L)
(W. D. Oklahoma)
DAYTON J. POPPELL,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This case is before the court on a request by Allen Casey Edwards for a
certificate of appealability (“COA”). Edwards seeks a COA so he can appeal the
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no appeal may be taken from the denial of a § 2254
petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). Because Edwards has not
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, he is not
entitled to a COA and his appeal is dismissed. See id. § 2253(c)(2).
After a jury trial, Edwards was convicted in Oklahoma state court of one
count of child abuse murder in the first degree. Edwards was sentenced to life
imprisonment. Edwards filed a direct appeal with the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals. Edwards’ appeal was denied and his conviction affirmed.
Edwards then filed a federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254with the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Edwards’ § 2254 petition was referred to a United States magistrate judge
for initial proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge
prepared a very thorough Report and Recommendation in which he addressed
each of the five issues raised by Edwards. Ultimately, the magistrate judge
recommended that Edwards’ petition be denied. After considering Edwards’
timely-filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, the district court
denied Edward’s petition.
In his application for a COA, Edwards presents a detailed argument on
only one issue addressed by the district court; whether the jury instruction on the
-2-
elements of child abuse murder violated his due process rights. Edwards argues
that Enmund v. Florida , 458 U.S. 781 (1982) and Tison v. Arizona , 481 U.S. 137(1987) require his conviction be supported by a jury finding of intent to injure.
We agree with the district court that Enmund and Tison are inapplicable to the
guilt phase of a criminal trial. See Cabana v. Bullock , 474 U.S. 376, 385 (1986).
“Enmund does not concern the guilt or innocence of the defendant—it establishes
no new elements of the crime of murder that must be found by the jury. . . .
Enmund holds only that the principles of proportionality embodied in the Eighth
Amendment bar imposition of the death penalty upon a class of persons who may
nonetheless be guilty of the crime of capital murder as defined by state law . . . .”
Id.; see also Cannon v. Gibson , 259 F.3d 1253, 1270 n.15 (10th Cir. 2001)
(“This court does not read Tison as addressing in any way the question whether
[defendant’s] murder conviction is infirm because the jury was not properly
instructed at trial on the elements of malice murder.”).
Although it is unclear from his appellate brief, Edwards also appears to be
seeking a COA on the other four issues he raised before the district court.
Edwards presents no appellate argument on these four issues. This court,
however, has reviewed Edwards’ appellate brief, the district court’s Order dated
December 21, 2001, the Report and Recommendation dated January 16, 2002,
and the entire record on appeal. That review clearly demonstrates the district
-3-
court’s denial of Edwards’ § 2254 petition is not deserving of further
proceedings or subject to a different resolution on appeal. Accordingly, we deny
Edwards’ request for a COA and dismiss his appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-