Haley v. Allbaugh, 17-6111

Charles Haley pleaded guilty in Oklahoma to second-degree robbery with a habitual-offender enhancement and agreed to a 25-year sentence (statutory exposure: 20 years to life).
Haley filed state post-conviction relief claiming (1) sentence was improperly enhanced using stale prior convictions and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize the improper enhancement.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found the stale-prior claim waived on direct appeal but addressed and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim on the merits.
Haley filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 reasserting the two claims.
A magistrate judge recommended denial on the merits (finding sufficient non-stale priors and that the ineffective-assistance rejection was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent); the district court adopted the recommendation and denied relief.
Haley sought a certificate of appealability (COA) and to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the Tenth Circuit; the court denied the COA, dismissed the appeal, denied IFP, and ordered payment of the appellate filing fee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentence was improperly enhanced using stale prior convictions	Haley: enhancement relied on stale priors and thus was invalid	State: record supported more than two non-stale prior felony convictions	Held: Rejected — magistrate and district court found sufficient non-stale priors; resolution not debatable for COA
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge habitual-offender enhancement	Haley: counsel performed deficiently and prejudice resulted	State: OCCA reasonably found no deficient performance or prejudice	Held: Rejected — OCCA’s denial was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established law
Whether Haley is entitled to a COA to appeal the § 2254 denial	Haley: issues merit appellate review	State: issues are meritless or not debatable under Miller-El standard	Held: Denied — Haley failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation; reasonable jurists would not debate the resolution
Whether Haley may proceed IFP on appeal	Haley: requests leave to proceed without prepayment	State: appellate rules require a nonfrivolous, reasoned argument for IFP	Held: Denied — Haley did not present a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument; filing fee must be paid

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for certificate of appealability)
Cannon v. Mullin, 383 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2004) (federal courts may bypass procedural bars and resolve habeas claims on the merits)
Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) (standard for IFP on appeal requires a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument)
United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2000) (generally impermissible to consider materials outside the district court record)