Christian v. Farris
701 F. App'x 717
10th Cir.2017Background
- George Christian, an Oklahoma state prisoner, was convicted of first-degree manslaughter, pointing a firearm, and felon-in-possession; concurrent sentences of 36, 25, and 20 years were imposed.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his convictions on direct appeal and denied post-conviction relief.
- Christian filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition raising eight principal claims (including failure to instruct on voluntary intoxication; excessive sentence; ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not investigating/presenting self-defense; denial of substitute counsel; denial of stand-your-ground instruction; cumulative error; improper jury instructions/prosecutorial argument; and claim of immunity from prosecution) and an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim for failing to raise those issues on direct appeal.
- The magistrate judge reviewed the merits of the claims, recommended denial of an evidentiary hearing and denial of habeas relief; the district court adopted the recommendation and denied relief, a COA, and IFP status.
- Christian sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit, arguing broadly that all claims facially raise constitutional violations and, more narrowly, that appellate counsel was ineffective and that an evidentiary hearing was required on that claim.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the state record, the OCCA's adjudication, and the district court’s decision and concluded Christian failed to make the requisite showing for a COA; the appeal was dismissed and IFP request denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COA should issue for all claims because petition facially alleges constitutional violations | Christian: a “quick look” shows all eight claims allege federal constitutional violations; COA must issue on all claims | Government/District Court: district court decided claims on the merits, so a mere facial allegation is insufficient under Slack; petitioner must show reasonable jurists could debate the merits | Denied — broad COA request rejected; district court adjudicated merits, so Slack "quick look" procedure inapplicable |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise Grounds 3–8 on direct appeal | Christian: appellate counsel was constitutionally deficient for omitting key issues (trial counsel ineffectiveness, denial of substitute counsel, stand-your-ground instruction, cumulative error, jury instructions/prosecutor argument, immunity) | OCCA applied Strickland and found no deficient performance or prejudice; district court concluded OCCA's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland | Denied — reasonable jurists would not debate district court’s assessment; COA denied on this claim |
| Whether district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the appellate-ineffectiveness claim | Christian: alleged facts, if true, would justify an evidentiary hearing on appellate counsel’s failure to raise trial-counsel investigation sub-claim | District Court/Government: because OCCA adjudicated the claim on the merits, federal court review is limited by § 2254(d)(1) and Pinholster — extra-record evidence is irrelevant unless § 2254(d) is overcome | Denied — petitioner failed to overcome § 2254(d)(1) limitation; evidentiary hearing properly denied |
| Whether any procedural-bar issues require different COA treatment | Christian: suggested district court denied on procedural grounds (invoking Ninth Circuit "quick look" precedents) | Court: district court resolved claims on the merits; therefore Ninth Circuit procedural-bar COA approach is inapplicable in Tenth Circuit review | Denied — procedural-bar argument misplaced; merits review controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for COA when district court addressed merits versus procedural dismissal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (limits on introducing new evidence in federal habeas when state court adjudicated claim on merits)
- Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799 (10th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing § 2254 procedural-dismissal COA practice)
- Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2003) (appellate-ineffective-assistance standard follows Strickland)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se litigants must adequately brief arguments or risk waiver)
- Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2000) ("quick look" COA approach for procedural dismissals)
- Petrocelli v. Angelone, 248 F.3d 877 (4th Cir. 2001) (discussing limited COA review when dismissal is procedural)
- Valerio v. Crawford, 306 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (procedural COA guidance)
- United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court may overlook deficient briefing in limited circumstances)
- Smith v. Duckworth, 824 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2016) (habeas court may bypass procedural bar and dispose of claim on merits when appropriate)