Ingram v. Allbaugh
678 F. App'x 729
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ingram, an Oklahoma inmate, was convicted of drug trafficking in 2014 and sentenced to 30 years; the OCCA affirmed on direct appeal.
- He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition raising five claims (same as on direct appeal); the magistrate judge issued an R&R recommending denial.
- The district court found Ingram waived three claims (1, 3, 4) for failing to press them in objections, conducted de novo review of claims 2 (ineffective assistance) and 5 (cumulative error), and adopted the R&R.
- District court denied habeas relief and concluded jurists of reason could not debate its resolution, thus denying a certificate of appealability (COA); it also denied in forma pauperis status on appeal as not taken in good faith.
- Ingram appealed, arguing all five claims; the Tenth Circuit limited review to ineffective assistance and cumulative error and denied COA, dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to recorded jail calls | Ingram: counsel was deficient for not objecting to admission of recorded calls that led to the search warrant; calls were critical to linking him to drugs | State/district: Ingram had no reasonable expectation of privacy (in custody and warned calls were recorded); any objection would be meritless and counsel reasonably declined | Denied — no substantial showing; counsel’s failure not unreasonable because recordings were legally obtained and admissible |
| Cumulative error (trial fairness) | Ingram: multiple errors plus prosecutorial misconduct rendered trial fundamentally unfair | State/district: Only isolated, non-constitutional errors; prosecutorial remarks properly commented on evidence; cumulative error requires multiple actual errors that render trial fundamentally unfair | Denied — no set of constitutional errors shown; cumulative-error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)
- United States v. Maestas, 639 F.3d 1032 (10th Cir. 2011) (privacy expectation requirement for Fourth Amendment protection)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (prosecutorial misconduct must be egregious to render trial fundamentally unfair)
- Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 1998) (habeas relief for prosecutorial misconduct only when trial rendered fundamentally unfair)