Arp v. McCollum
703 F. App'x 698
10th Cir.2017Background
- In 2011 Arp stabbed his girlfriend; an Oklahoma jury convicted him of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (60-year sentence) and Obstructing an Officer (30 days).
- On direct appeal to the OCCA Arp raised three state-law evidentiary claims: admission of domestic-violence expert testimony, admission of girlfriend’s rebuttal testimony about uncharged misconduct, and disclosure to the jury of a prior murder conviction; the OCCA rejected each claim.
- Arp filed state post-conviction relief raising appellate counsel ineffectiveness (for not raising certain trial-ineffectiveness claims) and a factual-innocence claim tied to alleged missing defense evidence; the state courts denied relief and found procedural default where appropriate.
- Arp filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting four grounds the district court addressed (including appellate counsel ineffectiveness and procedural-default/sufficiency issues); the district court denied relief and declined COAs on those grounds.
- On appeal Arp sought COAs for seven issues: the three direct-appeal evidentiary claims he says the district court overlooked and the four claims the district court adjudicated. The Tenth Circuit concluded none merited a COA and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Arp's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of domestic-violence expert testimony | Trial court erred admitting expert evidence beyond the record; prejudiced Arp’s defense | Testimony was within trial court’s discretion and relevant because evidence of domestic abuse existed | COA denied — purely state-law evidentiary issue, not federal habeas cognizable |
| Admission of girlfriend’s rebuttal testimony about uncharged misconduct | Rebuttal testimony improperly introduced prior bad acts and was prejudicial | No objection at trial; testimony was relevant to rebut self-defense and reviewed for plain error; no reversible error | COA denied — state-law evidentiary issue, not a federal constitutional claim |
| Disclosure of prior murder conviction to jury | State improperly revealed murder conviction when proving prior felonies, inflating sentence | Trial court’s handling not an abuse of discretion and did not cause excessive sentence | COA denied — state-law sentencing/evidentiary matter, not federal habeas ground |
| Appellate counsel ineffective; procedural-default/factual-innocence and sufficiency claims | Appellate counsel omitted meritorious issues; district court should reach factual-innocence sufficiency merits or excuse default | OCCA adjudicated appellate-ineffectiveness; AEDPA deference applies; sufficiency/factual-innocence claim was procedurally defaulted and state rules were adequate and independent | COA denied — appellate-ineffectiveness resolution not debatable under AEDPA; procedural-default rulings and non-cognizable challenges to state post-conviction procedure upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (COA standards and appealability from habeas denial)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for COA: whether jurists could debate the district court’s resolution)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas does not lie for state-law evidentiary errors)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference where state court rejects Strickland claim)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standards when petition denied on procedural grounds)
- Thacker v. Workman, 678 F.3d 820 (10th Cir. 2012) (procedural default and adequacy of state rules)
- Phillips v. Ferguson, 182 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 1999) (challenges to state post-conviction procedures not cognizable on federal habeas)
- Hooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2012) (federal habeas review limited to vindication of constitutional rights)