White v. Patton

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 16, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
MARQUISE LELAND WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 14-5113
(D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00291-GKF-TLW)
ROBERT PATTON, Director, (N.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
Before BACHARACH, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
Marquise Leland White, through counsel, requests a certificate of appealability
(COA) to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application
for a writ of habeas corpus. We deny a COA and dismiss the proceeding.
A jury found Mr. White guilty of first degree murder, kidnapping, and first
degree robbery. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his
convictions and sentences. Mr. White then pursued relief under § 2254, raising five
claims: (1) officers used force and duress to obtain a false confession from him, and
admitting this confession deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial; (2) excluding
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the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.
expert testimony about false confessions denied him the ability to present a
meaningful defense; (3) excluding testimony that his brother, Waitki Crawford, had
confessed to their uncle that he committed the murder denied him the ability to
impeach Mr. Crawford’s testimony and to present exculpatory evidence, violating his
right to a fundamentally fair trial; (4) admitting a prior consistent statement by his
cousin, Jhirimi McClendon, bolstered Mr. McClendon’s testimony, violating his right
to a fundamentally fair trial; and (5) the cumulative effect of the four errors deprived
Mr. White of a fundamentally fair trial. The district court denied relief on each claim
and denied a COA.
To appeal, Mr. White must obtain a COA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A),
which requires him to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right,” id. § 2253(c)(2).
This means that the applicant must show “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, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542(2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the applicant
must show that the district court’s resolution of the constitutional claim
was either “debatable or wrong.” Id.United States v. Taylor, 454 F.3d 1075, 1078 (10th Cir. 2006). Because the OCCA
considered Mr. White’s claims on the merits, § 2254(d) precludes federal habeas
relief unless the OCCA’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States,” or was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
-2-
the light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1), (2). “Thus, the decision whether to grant [the] COA request rests on
whether reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong in light of the deference owed to the
OCCA’s adjudication of [the] claims.” Howell v. Trammell, 728 F.3d 1202, 1225
(10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Dockins v. Hines,
374 F.3d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 2004) (“[Section 2254(d)’s] deferential treatment of
state court decisions must be incorporated into our consideration of a habeas
petitioner’s request for COA.”).
Before this court, Mr. White abandons his cumulative-error argument and
focuses on his first four issues. But he almost entirely ignores the restrictions of
§ 2254(d). The district court carefully and thoroughly explained why the OCCA’s
decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court
precedent. Having reviewed the COA application and Mr. White’s appendix, we
conclude that Mr. White has not shown that the district court’s resolution of his
claims was debatable or wrong.
We therefore deny Mr. White a COA for substantially the reasons stated in the
district court’s decision filed on August 26, 2014. This matter is dismissed.
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
-3-