Davis v. Newton-Embry ( 2012 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 2, 2012
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
STEPHANIE DEANN DAVIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
No. 12-6007
MILLICENT NEWTON-EMBRY,
(D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00079-W)
Warden of the Mabel Bassett
Correctional Center, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee .
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Stephanie Davis, along with a co-defendant, was tried in Oklahoma state
court for the first degree murder of Ms. Davis’s young child and on related
charges of neglect and abuse. Ms. Davis was convicted of the murder and
sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. After appealing that conviction to
the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, she brought a federal habeas petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that her conviction was constitutionally invalid
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
on the grounds that she was entitled to a trial separate from her co-defendant and
that the prosecutor improperly commented on her Fifth Amendment right to
remain silent. After receiving the recommendations of a magistrate, the district
court denied the petition.
The district court did not issue a certificate of appealability (COA) and Ms.
Davis does not specifically request one from us. We construe the district court’s
failure to issue a COA as a denial and, as a COA is a prerequisite of our
consideration of Ms. Davis’s claims, we construe her appeal as a request for such
a certificate. See United States v. Riddick, 104 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by United States v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d 1363 (10th
Cir. 1997).
We may issue a COA only if Ms. Davis makes a “substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this
standard she must demonstrate 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal
quotation omitted). That is, she must show that reasonable jurists might disagree
with the district court’s determination that the OCCA’s decision was not
“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
-2-
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
In support of her claim that she was entitled to a separate trial, Ms. Davis
points to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), arguing that under Bruton
severance is required whenever co-defendant’s defenses are “mutually
antagonistic.” But as we have previously recognized, the clear scope of Bruton
encompasses only the situation where a co-defendant’s statement inculpating the
defendant is admitted into evidence. See United States v. Sarracino, 340 F.3d
1148, 1160 (10th Cir. 2003). And even then, “the exception created by Bruton is
a narrow one,” applying only “in those few contexts where the statement is so
inculpatory as to the defendant that the practical and human limitations of the jury
system cannot be ignored.” Id. (quotation omitted). In this case, while the
statements of Ms. Davis’s co-defendant may have been inferentially
incriminating, there is no real suggestion that they were so inculpatory as to
constitutionally require separate trials.
Ms. Davis’s remaining claim, that the prosecutor improperly commented on
her right to remain silent, also does not merit habeas relief. As the district court
noted, the prosecutor’s comments were effectively invited by the defense itself,
and any error was undoubtedly harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence
supporting the conviction.
-3-
Ms. Davis’s application for a COA is denied and this appeal is dismissed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-4-