Boles v. Long
21-1238
| 10th Cir. | Feb 3, 2022Background
- Defendant Russell Boles shot a co-tenant in the leg at a garage complex, then retreated to his RV and engaged in a nearly five‑hour standoff with police during which he communicated by phone/text.
- Boles represented himself at portions of the proceedings (after initially having counsel), moved to suppress evidence from an alleged warrantless arrest, and asserted self‑defense at trial.
- A jury convicted Boles of first‑degree assault and failure to leave premises; he received a 24‑year sentence.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals (CCA) affirmed on multiple grounds, rejecting claims about counsel conflict (for lack of an adequate appellate record), jury instructions, Brady disclosure, constitutionality of the statute, and cumulative error. Colorado Supreme Court denied review.
- Boles filed a §2254 habeas petition in federal district court raising five claims; the district court denied relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
- The Tenth Circuit denied a COA and dismissed Boles’s appeal, concluding reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s procedural and merits rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of alternate counsel / right to counsel | Boles: trial court should have appointed alternate counsel due to conflict/bias | State: CCA found the appellate record inadequate; procedural bar applies | COA denied — claim procedurally defaulted; no clear & convincing evidence to rebut §2254(e)(1) presumption |
| 2. Jury instructions / due process (reasonable doubt burden) | Boles: instructions relieved prosecution of burden and prevented jury from considering defense evidence | State: pattern instructions accurately tracked statute and law; CCA correctly applied state law | COA denied — CCA’s merits ruling was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under §2254(d) |
| 3. Brady / nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence | Boles: prosecution failed to preserve/disclose security footage, texts, and used allegedly false testimony | State: evidence was investigated/preserved as far as possible; no material undisclosed evidence or identified perjury | COA denied — no reasonable dispute that CCA’s factual and legal Brady adjudication was reasonable |
| 4. Fourth Amendment / warrantless arrest & suppression | Boles: arrest in RV was unlawful and evidence should have been suppressed | State: Boles had full and fair opportunity to litigate suppression in state court; Stone v. Powell bars federal habeas review | COA denied — Stone bar appropriately applied; no debate among reasonable jurists |
| 5. Cumulative error | Boles: accumulated trial errors warrant relief | State: CCA found no errors to accumulate | COA denied — no two or more constitutional errors; no unreasonable application of federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179 (2009) (federal habeas review of jury‑instruction claims requires showing reasonable likelihood the jury misapplied instructions)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (where state provided full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claim, federal habeas relief is barred)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (standards for fundamental unfairness in habeas review of prosecutorial misconduct/argument)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) (presumption regarding state court procedural default when last reasoned opinion imposes a bar)