Vansickle v. Braggs
17-7035
| 10th Cir. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Jason Vansickle, a pro se Oklahoma state prisoner, was convicted of aggravated manufacture of methamphetamine and sentenced to 20 years.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) denied direct appeal (sufficiency of evidence) and denied post-conviction relief, finding eight claims procedurally defaulted and rejecting an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim on the merits.
- Vansickle filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising ten claims (insufficiency of evidence; various trial errors and prosecutorial/expert testimony issues; cumulative error; ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; sentencing challenge).
- The district court held claims 2–9 procedurally barred, denied habeas relief on claim 1 (insufficient evidence) and claim 10 (ineffective assistance of appellate counsel), and refused a certificate of appealability (COA).
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether jurists of reason could debate the district court’s rulings under AEDPA and the COA standards and denied a COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Vansickle: Evidence didn’t show dominion/control over drugs/manufacture | State/OCCA: Evidence in shed, personal items, exclusive access supported dominion | COA denied; OCCA decision reasonable under Jackson/AEDPA; insufficiency claim fails |
| Procedural default of claims 2–9 | Vansickle: District court erred refusing to excuse defaults; seeks review | State/OCCA: Claims waived by not raising on direct appeal; independent adequate state ground | COA denied; district court correctly applied procedural bar; no cause or actual-innocence shown |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (claim 10) | Vansickle: Counsel failed to raise claims 2–9 on direct appeal, prejudicing outcome | State/OCCA: OCCA found no prejudice; raising those claims wouldn’t have changed appeal result | COA denied; OCCA’s Strickland-based no-prejudice ruling reasonable under AEDPA |
| AEDPA/COA standard application | Vansickle: Seeks federal review and COA | State: AEDPA limits relief; COA requires debate among jurists | Court: Applied AEDPA deference and COA standards (Slack/Miller-El/Buck); no debatable issues; COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard for evidence)
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (COA standard and appellate jurisdiction discussion)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard — jurists could disagree formulation)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (COA when procedural default involved)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-part test)
- Patton v. Mullin, 425 F.3d 788 (AEDPA deference when state standard aligns with federal standard)
- Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002 (applying AEDPA to sufficiency review)
- United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628 (10th Cir. insufficiency discussion — distinguished on facts)