United States v. Woodlee ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 9 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Apellee,
v. No. 99-7154
(E.D. Okla.)
GARY WOODLEE, (D.Ct. No. 99-CV-144-S)
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, 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.
Appellant Gary Woodlee appeals the district court’s decision denying his
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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.
motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence.
We deny Mr. Woodlee’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss his
appeal.
Mr. Woodlee received three convictions for violent interference with three
individuals’ federally protected rights to enjoyment of a public facility under 18
U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(F). The facts under which Mr. Woodlee received his
convictions are set out in our decision affirming his direct appeal. See United
States v. Woodlee, 136 F.3d 1399, 1403-04 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 842
(1998). In short, Mr. Woodlee, his brother and other white men made
innumerable and extremely venomous, racial remarks directed at three black
males – David Carter, Tim Walker and Brock Lockhart – who entered a bar in
Oklahoma. Id. at 1403. At one point, while looking at Mr. Carter, Gary Woodlee
stated he “was going to shoot the s--- out of that black son-of-a-b----.” Id. Later,
James Woodlee handed Gary Woodlee a pistol, at which time the bartender heard
Gary Woodlee say he would use the gun to shoot the three black men. Id. Gary
Woodlee, his brother and white men then followed the black men out of the bar
into the parking lot where they continued taunting and threatening the three men.
After the three men got into Mr. Carter’s car and began driving away, Mr.
Lockhart shouted out the window, “You guys are a bunch of a------s.” Id. Gary
-2-
Woodlee and his brother invited another man, Robert Kinslow, to join them in
pursuing the three men. Id. Before getting into the passenger seat of the truck
driven by Gary Woodlee, Mr. Kinslow retrieved a rifle from his own car. Id.
During their pursuit, Mr. Kinslow fired shots through the car’s rear window,
injuring Mr. Carter. Id. at 1404, 1409.
On direct appeal, Gary Woodlee raised several issues, which we rejected in
affirming his conviction. Id. at 1403. Unsuccessful in his direct appeal, Mr.
Woodlee filed his 28 U.S. § 2255 motion raising three claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. After reviewing Mr. Woodlee’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claims, the district court determined they lacked merit because Mr.
Woodlee failed to show his counsel acted ineffectively or that his performance, if
deficient, prejudiced Mr. Woodlee’s defense. Accordingly, the district court
denied Mr. Woodlee’s § 2255 motion.
On appeal, Mr. Woodlee raises two of the same ineffective assistance of
counsel claims addressed by the district court. Mr. Woodlee’s first claim centers
on the foreseeability of “bodily injury” to Mr. Carter. Mr. Woodlee claims his
counsel acted ineffectively in failing to:
1) object to a jury instruction which did not inform the jury that “bodily
injury” must be a “forseeable result” of his alleged intimidation or
-3-
interference under 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(F);
2) request a “lesser included offense” instruction allowing the jury the
option of finding him guilty of a misdemeanor offense of § 245(b)(2)(F)
because the bodily injury of Mr. Carter was “not forseeable”; and
3) investigate case law, other legal authorities, and the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, including Rule 31(c), to support raising these issues.
In his second claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Mr. Woodlee
claims his counsel acted ineffectively by: 1) failing to move for a downward
departure of his sentence under United States Sentencing Guideline § 5K2.10 due
to Mr. Lockhart’s alleged “victim misconduct,” and 2) failing to investigate the
law relevant to a U.S.S.G. § 5K2.10 departure. In support of this claim, Mr.
Woodlee contends Mr. Lockhart’s “victim misconduct” arose from his alleged use
of “fighting words” and his act of throwing gravel at Mr. Woodlee’s friend’s
vehicle in the parking lot.
Mr. Woodlee’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim “presents a mixed
question of law and fact which we review de novo.” Hickman v. Spears, 160 F.3d
1269, 1273 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). To prevail
on this claim, Mr. Woodlee must show: “(1) that his counsel’s performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that the deficient
performance was prejudicial to his defense.” Id. (citing Strickland v. Washington,
-4-
466 U.S. 668 , 688, 694 (1984)). Under this two-prong test, we need not
separately determine the effectiveness of Mr. Woodlee’s counsel if the alleged
deficiency would not have prejudiced Mr. Woodlee. See Brewer v. Reynolds, 51
F.3d 1519, 1523 & n.7 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1123. To establish
prejudice, Mr. Woodlee must show “‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s [allegedly] unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different.’” Hickman, 160 F.3d at 1273 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S.
at 694).
With these standards in mind, we conclude Mr. Woodlee’s first claim
regarding the foreseeablilty of Mr. Carter’s bodily injuries is foreclosed by our
decision in his direct appeal. In support of his direct appeal, Mr. Woodlee argued
he could only receive a misdemeanor conviction under § 245(b)(2)(F), and not a
felony conviction which requires “bodily injury.” Woodlee, 136 F.3d at 1405. In
addressing this issue, we held “the bodily injury element of the felony crime is
satisfied if injury was a foreseeable result of the Woodlees’ intimidation or
interference.” Id. at 1406. We then concluded the trial court correctly
determined Mr. Woodlee should have foreseen the resulting injury to Mr. Carter
given he and others continuously taunted the three black men, and later engaged
in a high-speed car chase while intoxicated and in possession of a pistol which
-5-
Mr. Woodlee said he would use. Id. We also concluded a rational jury could
have found the government established the foreseeability of bodily injury beyond
a reasonable doubt. Id. In our decision, we also held Mr. Carter suffered a
serious bodily injury based on a permanent eye injury resulting from the shooting.
Id. at 1408-09.
In raising the issues of foreseeability and misdemeanor offense under the
guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Mr. Woodlee is simply
attempting to rehash underlying issues previously addressed by this Court. Given
we determined the evidence clearly supported a felony conviction for bodily
injury, we hold Mr. Woodlee’s counsel did not act ineffectively, and Mr. Woodlee
was not prejudiced, because his counsel failed to request a “lesser included
offense” instruction on a misdemeanor offense, which does not involve the
element of bodily injury.
In addition, having already determined the jury could find bodily injury was
a foreseeable consequence of Mr. Woodlee’s and his friends’ actions, we hold Mr.
Woodlee has not demonstrated prejudice because his counsel failed to object to a
jury instruction stating “bodily injury” must be a “foreseeable result” of Mr.
Woodlee’s alleged intimidation or interference. In other words, Mr. Woodlee has
-6-
not shown that, but for this alleged error, the result of the proceeding would have
been different. See Hickman, 160 F.3d at 1273.
We also reject Mr. Woodlee’s other ineffective assistance of counsel claim
which focuses on his counsel’s failure to request a downward departure for
“victim misconduct” under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.10. Mr. Woodlee’s claim Mr.
Lockhart committed “victim misconduct” by using “fighting words” 1 and
throwing gravel is not supported by the record before us. Rather, on direct
appeal, we reviewed the record and determined “[t]hroughout the entire evening,
Mr. Carter, Mr. Walker and Mr. Lockhart never approached the defendants or
responded to the racial taunting.” Woodlee, 136 F.3d at 1403. The only response
of record, recited in our previous opinion, came in the parking lot when Mr.
Lockhart shouted out that Mr. Woodlee and his friends were “a bunch of a------s.”
Id. Although Mr. Woodlee relies on portions of the trial transcript to support
what he perceives as Mr. Lockhart’s other acts of “victim misconduct,” he failed
to present the transcript for our review. As a result, we cannot confirm the
content, context or timing of Mr. Lockhart’s other alleged comments and actions.
1
Besides calling Mr. Woodlee and his friends “a------s,” Mr. Woodlee also claims
Mr. Lockhart told them to “just p--- on themselves” and shouted “Come on, mother
f------, if you want me, here I am.”
-7-
Mr. Woodlee, as the appellant, “is responsible for insuring that all materials on
which he seeks to rely are part of the record on appeal.” United States v.
Vasquez, 985 F.2d 491, 495 (10th Cir. 1993). “In the absence of a transcript or a
statement of the parties in lieu of a transcript,” this court will not generally
review the issue. Id.
Moreover, even if we exercised our discretion and reviewed the assigned
error, it appears from the limited record before us and our prior decision that Mr.
Woodlee and his friends instigated the entire incident and made innumerable
racially based accusations, using much stronger and fouler language than Mr.
Lockhart allegedly used, and twice verbally threatened to shoot the three black
men. Woodlee, 136 F.3d at 1403-04. Thus, even if we took Mr. Woodlee’s
contentions as to what Mr. Lockhart stated to be true, we cannot say Mr.
Lockhart’s alleged “wrongful conduct contributed significantly to provoking the
offense behavior” of Mr. Woodlee, as required by U.S.S.G. § 5K2.10 for a
downward departure. 2 In other words, it is clear Mr. Lockhart’s actions did not
2
In his brief, Mr. Woodlee also generally contends the three black men brought
Mr. Carter’s pistol into the bar after Mr. Woodlee and his friends refused to give up their
pool table to them. In our prior decision, we determined none of thedefendants, including
Mr. Woodlee, knew Mr. Carter possessed a pistol. Woodlee, 136 F.3d at 1141. In
addition, Mr. Carter testified he never removed the pistol from his car. Id. Given the
white men were unaware of the pistol, we cannot conclude the fact Mr. Carter possessed
the pistol in any way contributed to Mr. Lockhart’s alleged “victim conduct” or otherwise
-8-
significantly provoke the incident that led to the racially based, high-speed and
dangerous pursuit and shooting of another human being.
Finally, in order to obtain a certificate of appealability, Mr. Woodlee must
make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). A review of the record establishes he fails to make the requisite
showing. For this reason, Mr. Woodlee’s request for a certificate of appealability
is denied, and his appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
provoked Mr. Woodlee’s offensive conduct.
-9-