Watson v. Bear , 622 F. App'x 762 ( 2015 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 17, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
WILLIAM MATHEW WATSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 15-6142
(W.D. Oklahoma)
CARL BEAR, Warden, (D.C. No. 5:12-CV-01079-D)
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND
DISMISSING THE APPEAL
_________________________________
Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. William Watson, an Oklahoma state prisoner, wants to appeal on
his habeas claims involving ineffective assistance of trial and appellate
counsel. The district court held that Mr. Watson had not shown ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel and was procedurally barred on his claim
involving trial counsel. We can entertain the appeal only if Mr. Watson has
justified a certificate of appealability. He has not, and we dismiss the
appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
Standard for a Certificate of Appealability
To justify a certificate, Mr. Watson must make a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003). This showing exists only if reasonable jurists could
find the district court’s rulings debatable or wrong. See Laurson v. Leyba,
507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007). In applying this standard, we
conclude that the rulings are not debatable or wrong.
Ineffectiveness of Appellate Counsel
Liberally interpreting the application, we believe Mr. Watson is
contesting the district court’s legal conclusions on the claim of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. The district court concluded that Mr.
Watson had not shown that the state appeals court’s analysis conflicted
with or unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent. In our view, these
conclusions are not reasonably debatable. Therefore, we deny a certificate
of appealability on the claim involving Mr. Watson’s appellate counsel.
Ineffectiveness of Trial Counsel
With this determination, we must also deny a certificate of
appealability on the claim involving Mr. Watson’s trial counsel.
The district court determined that Mr. Watson had failed to overcome
a state procedural default. To overcome the burden of the procedural bar,
Mr. Watson had to show cause for the default and actual prejudice. See
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). In an effort to show
cause, Mr. Watson relies on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel. But we have already rejected this claim; thus, it cannot serve as
cause to avoid a procedural default on the claim involving ineffectiveness
2
of trial counsel. See Thornburg v. Mullin, 422 F.3d 1113, 1142 (10th Cir.
2005). In these circumstances, we conclude that the district court’s finding
of a procedural bar is not reasonably debatable. As a result, we deny a
certificate of appealability on the claim involving Mr. Watson’s trial
counsel.
Disposition
Because Mr. Watson has not justified a certificate of appealability,
we dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
3