Harris v. Dinwiddie
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8672
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Harris fatally shot Otto Reichel on June 24, 2005; Peters and Myers were present and testified against him at trial.
- The jury found Harris guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
- Harris challenged admission of other-crimes evidence (stolen murder weapon and stolen van) and insufficiency of evidence, and claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not impeaching Peters with jail letters.
- OCCA affirmed, holding the other-crimes evidence admissible for preparation, Peters not an accomplice, no plain error on the van evidence, and no ineffective assistance evidence warranted an evidentiary hearing.
- Harris filed a pro se § 2254 petition; district court dismissed or denied, addressing timeliness, exhaustion, and various ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
- The district court concluded the remaining claims were procedurally barred or failed under Strickland; the district court treated the fifth claim as untimely but acknowledged the timing issue for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris is entitled to a certificate of appealability | Harris contends COA should be granted due to debatable constitutional questions | The district court's decision was not reasonably debatable | COA denied; petition not reasonably debatable |
| Timeliness and exhaustion of the fifth habeas claim | Fifth claim timely under prison-mailbox rule; should be considered on the merits | Fifth claim untimely and/or not properly exhausted | Fifth claim deemed untimely but timeliness ultimately found cured; merits reviewed under AEDPA standards |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel—impeachment of Peters with letters | Counsel's failure to impeach Peters with letters prejudiced Harris | Even if deficient, no prejudice established given remaining evidence | No due prejudice shown; Strickland claim denied on merits |
| Newly discovered evidence and perjured testimony claim | Anderson letter shows Myers perjured testimony; warrants new trial | Letter credibility and materiality insufficient; not a new trial warrant | Not entitled to new trial; evidence insufficient to alter outcome |
| Admission of stolen weapon/van evidence and prosecutorial misstatement of evidence | Evidence and misstatements denied Harris a fair trial | Limiting instructions and evidence relevance supported admissibility | Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003) (COA standards require substantial showing of denial of constitutional right)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000) (threshold standard for obtaining a COA)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (Supreme Court, 2011) (double deference in § 2254(d) review)
- Locke v. Saffle, 237 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2001) (timing of AEDPA limitations under finality rules)
- Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2003) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)