Craighead v. Bear
17-6180
| 10th Cir. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Craighead, an Oklahoma prisoner, was convicted of endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine and sentenced to 30 years and a $50,000 fine; the OCCA affirmed his conviction and later denied post-conviction relief.
- Craighead filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition raising 16 claims; a magistrate judge issued an R&R recommending dismissal on June 14, 2017.
- Craighead did not file objections to the R&R by the July 5, 2017 deadline; the district court adopted the R&R and denied the petition and a COA.
- On appeal he sought a COA and IFP status; the Tenth Circuit sua sponte ordered him to show cause why the firm waiver rule should not bar review.
- Craighead explained delay by transfer, mailing legal papers to his mother to seek counsel, and late receipt of those papers; the court found he was notified of objection deadline in the R&R and gave insufficient excuse for missing it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firm-waiver rule (failure to object to R&R) | Craighead says transfer and mailing to mother prevented timely objection; asks not to be held to waiver rule | R&R clearly notified deadline and consequences; plaintiff got notice; firm waiver applies absent a strong excuse or interests-of-justice | Waiver applies; interests-of-justice exception not met; appeal barred and COA denied |
| Reconsideration of motion to suppress (subject-matter power) | Trial court lacked power under Oklahoma law to reconsider and deny suppression ruling | Issue is state-law question; federal habeas cannot reexamine state-law rulings | Claim rejects federal review; district court correctly dismissed as state-law issue |
| Prosecutorial misconduct—burden of proof (voir dire/closing) | Prosecutor commented that defendant failed to present evidence and contrasted standards, undermining presumption of innocence | OCCA found comments did not shift burden or negate presumption; context shows no constitutional violation | No due-process violation; OCCA’s decision reasonable under AEDPA |
| Sufficiency of evidence (dominion and control) | Evidence insufficient to show dominion and control to support endeavor to manufacture methamphetamine | OCCA applied Jackson and found strong circumstantial evidence supported conviction; magistrate listed sufficient evidence | Evidence sufficient; OCCA’s application of Jackson not unreasonable |
| Fifth Amendment—Miranda waiver & unrecorded custodial interrogation | Waiver was involuntary / interrogation unreliable because unrecorded | Officer testified Miranda warnings given and waiver was knowing; Jackson v. Denno hearing held statements voluntary; no federal rule requires recording | OCCA reasonably found valid waiver and that admission of unrecorded interrogation did not violate clearly established federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales‑Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm‑waiver rule and exceptions)
- Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2008) (application of waiver exceptions for pro se litigants)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas limits on reviewing state‑law matters)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (prosecutorial remarks and due process)
- Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973) (presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1987) (contextual review of prosecutorial comments)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA’s highly deferential standard)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650 (2012) (deference to jury inferences)
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (right to a hearing on voluntariness of confessions)
- Ellis v. Raemisch, 872 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2017) (AEDPA standard applied to state‑court adjudications)