Cano v. Williams, 21-1214

Background

Raymond Cano was convicted by a jury of first-degree, gang-related murder and sentenced to life without parole; direct appeal affirmed in 2000 and Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Cano pursued state postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), including a conflict of interest; Colorado courts remanded, denied relief on remand, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied review.
Cano filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in federal district court raising four claims: Confrontation Clause violations; IAC (including conflict-of-interest); denial of a continuance; and prosecutorial misconduct; the district court denied relief and declined a certificate of appealability (COA).
On appeal for a COA to the Tenth Circuit, Cano challenged the district court’s rulings; the panel applied AEDPA’s deferential standards and reviewed whether reasonable jurists could debate the denials.
The court concluded: Confrontation claims failed because challenged statements were either excluded, non-testimonial, or offered for non-hearsay purposes; IAC claims lacked demonstrated prejudice and the asserted conflict was de minimis and produced no adverse effect; denial of continuance was within trial-court discretion; prosecutorial remarks did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
The Tenth Circuit denied Cano’s COA, denied IFP, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause	Out-of-court statements and testimony about another suspect violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights	Statements were either excluded, non-testimonial, defendant’s own statements, or offered to explain investigative acts (not for the truth)	Denied — no debatable Confrontation violation under Crawford/AEDPA standards
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (investigations, witnesses, experts, communication)	Counsel failed to investigate alibi/impeachment witnesses, secure experts, and communicate; prejudice likely changed outcome	No record showing prejudice from unnamed witnesses or experts; assertions speculative	Denied — no showing of prejudice under Strickland/AEDPA
Ineffective Assistance — conflict of interest (simultaneous representation of Sergio Aguilar)	Public defender’s office also represented Aguilar and thereby conflicted, preventing investigation/presentation of alternate-suspect theory	Overlap was minimal and counsel was unaware; no nonspeculative link between Aguilar and crime; no adverse effect shown	Denied — Cuyler requires actual adverse effect; state court rejection was reasonable
Denial of Continuance & Prosecutorial Misconduct	Trial court abused discretion denying late continuance; prosecutor’s closing injected unfairness	Late disclosures and testing did not cause material prejudice; continuance risked losing witnesses; remarks did not fatally infect trial and jury instructions cured	Denied — state court rulings not objectively unreasonable; remarks/continuance within trial-court discretion

Key Cases Cited

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (COA standard: substantial showing that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (IAC requires deficient performance and prejudice)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause limits on testimonial hearsay)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial-misconduct due-process standard: comments must so infect trial as to deny due process)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (state-court decisions entitled to deference unless lacking justification beyond fairminded disagreement)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (AEDPA review limited to state-court record)
Virginia v. LeBlanc, 137 S. Ct. 1726 (state-court error must be objectively unreasonable; clear error insufficient)
Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.) (explaining AEDPA "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" clauses)
Freeman, 816 F.2d 558 (10th Cir.) (out-of-court statements admissible to explain investigative acts, not for truth)