451 F. App'x 761
10th Cir.2011Background
- Burling was convicted by a jury on 12 counts of sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to 36 years.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- Postconviction relief was denied in state court and the OCCA affirmed.
- Burling filed a federal habeas petition under §2254 in district court, asserting six claims.
- The district court denied relief; on appeal Burling pursues only claims 1 and 3 and part of 2.
- The AEDPA framework applies, requiring deference to state court adjudications on merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vouching by headmaster and credibility witnesses | Burling argues headmaster improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility. | OCCA found the testimony admissible under state rules after credibility challenges. | No reasonable jurists debate the district court’s lack of merit. |
| Hatlelid’s expert testimony vouching | Hatlelid’s opinion relied on limited evidence and improperly vouched for the victim. | OCCA found the expert admissible; evidence weight for the jury to decide. | No reasonable jurists debate the district court’s ruling. |
| Prosecutorial vouching in closing | Prosecutor vouched for the victim’s truthfulness. | Argument was not improper; based on testimony and evidence, not personal knowledge. | No substantial showing of error; issue denied. |
| Ineffective assistance for not calling victim’s mother | Counsel was ineffective for omitting the mother’s testimony. | OCCA found no prejudice from the omission. | No reasonable likelihood of different outcome; claim denied. |
| Vagueness of information and impact on parole | Information lacked dates/locations, threatening double jeopardy and parole eligibility strategies. | OCCA held jeopardy attached during the period; information sufficiently apprised charges. | No reasonable application of federal law; claim denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (standard for Certificate of Appealability (COA))
- Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA deference; unreasonable application/Fact-findings)
- Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA deferential review applies to merits decisions)
- Parker v. Scott, 394 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2005) (expert testimony and credentials in habeas context)
- Hunter v. New Mexico, 916 F.2d 595 (10th Cir. 1990) (due process challenges to charging documents in child-abuse cases)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)