Keys v. Faulk, 17-1144

Damon Keys, a Colorado prisoner, was convicted (1995) of multiple violent offenses and sentenced to 96 years; Colorado courts reversed and remanded multiple times on counsel/conflict and procedural grounds before a retrial conviction and state post-conviction attempts failed.
Keys filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition raising: (1) suppression of evidence because the arrest warrant was void ab initio, (2) a pretextual arrest used to seize his shoes, and (3) six ineffective-assistance-of-counsel subclaims.
The district court dismissed the pretextual-arrest claim as procedurally barred, denied the other habeas claims, and denied a certificate of appealability (COA); Keys appealed pro se seeking a COA from the Tenth Circuit.
The Tenth Circuit evaluated whether reasonable jurists could debate the merits or procedural rulings under Slack v. McDaniel and AEDPA deference standards, and whether Keys had a full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claims in state court.
Court concluded Stone v. Powell bars federal habeas relief on the Fourth Amendment seizure claim because Colorado provided a full and fair litigation opportunity; the pretextual-arrest claim was unexhausted/forfeited; and none of the ineffective-assistance subclaims met Strickland deficiency/prejudice standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of arrest warrant / suppression of shoe evidence	Warrant void ab initio; seizure unlawful so evidence should be suppressed	State courts provided full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claim; Stone bar applies	Denied — Stone bars habeas relief; state courts reasonably applied Fourth Amendment law
Pretextual arrest to seize shoes	Arrest was a pretext; warrant was backdated and unlawful	Claim was not fairly presented/exhausted in Colorado appellate process; procedurally barred	Dismissed as procedurally barred/unexhausted
Ineffective assistance — conflict-free counsel substitution	Trial counsel had an actual conflict and should have been replaced	CCA found any conflict did not adversely affect counsel’s performance; no Strickland showing	Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Other IAC subclaims (investigation, cross-exam, reasonable-doubt, prosecutorial misconduct)	Counsel failed to investigate/test forensics, impeach witnesses, press reasonable-doubt strategy, and object to misconduct	State record and proceedings show counsel investigated, impeached, and argued reasonable doubt; claims speculative or not developed in state record	Denied — no Strickland deficiency or prejudice; review limited to state-court record

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability and review of procedurally dismissed claims)
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (federal habeas relief barred where state provided full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (§ 2254 review limited to the state-court record)
Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA deference to state-court decisions)
Gamble v. Oklahoma, 583 F.2d 1161 (10th Cir. 1978) (what constitutes a full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claims)
Matthews v. Workman, 577 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2009) (substantive disagreement with state outcome insufficient for habeas relief)
Ellis v. Raemisch, 872 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2017) (Colorado appellate review rules and exhaustion implications under AEDPA)
Williams v. Trammell, 782 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2015) (fair presentation requires presenting the substance and factual basis of federal claims)
House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 2008) (AEDPA § 2254(d)(1) inquiry and showing for presumed prejudice in conflict cases)
Jones v. Hess, 681 F.2d 688 (10th Cir. 1982) (claim unexhausted where factual basis was not presented to state courts)