Webb v. Allbaugh
703 F. App'x 655
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Webb was charged with second-degree rape by instrumentation for allegedly digitally penetrating 14-year-old A.S.; trial occurred in January 2012.
- At the preliminary hearing A.S. testified consistently with the accusation, but at trial she was often uncooperative, initially denied key facts, then reluctantly affirmed parts of her preliminary-hearing testimony. Other witnesses gave mixed or exculpatory accounts.
- The jury convicted Webb and recommended a 30-year sentence; the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed on direct appeal, rejecting sufficiency, speedy-trial, and excess-sentence claims.
- Webb filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising the same three claims; the district court denied relief on the merits under AEDPA and declined a certificate of appealability (COA).
- Webb filed a Rule 60(b) motion asserting (inter alia) the district court failed to review sufficiency de novo and overlooked state-law issues (directed verdict / sua sponte acquittal). The district court denied the motion after de novo consideration of unadjudicated arguments.
- Webb sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit; the panel declined to issue a COA and dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial showing of a constitutional violation and that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Webb) | Defendant's Argument (State/District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (due process) | Evidence—A.S.’s inconsistent trial testimony—was insufficient to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt. | OCCA applied Jackson standard; evidence (A.S.’s corroborated preliminary testimony) was sufficient; district court found OCCA’s adjudication reasonable under AEDPA. | Denied COA; no reasonable jurist would debate that the OCCA/district court reasonably applied Jackson. |
| Speedy-trial (Sixth Amendment) | Pretrial delay violated Barker factors and prejudiced Webb. | Much delay attributable to Webb; Barker factors weighed against him; OCCA/district court reasonably applied law and facts. | Denied COA; district court’s assessment of speedy-trial claim not debatable. |
| Directed verdict / sua sponte acquittal (state-law/jury instruction) | Trial judge’s statement that uncorroborated testimony wouldn’t support conviction required a directed verdict or jury acquittal instruction; omission violated due process. | Under Oklahoma law the decision is discretionary; even if state-law error, it does not automatically create a federal due process violation absent insufficient evidence; district court reviewed de novo and rejected the claim. | Denied COA; district court properly rejected claim and no due process violation shown. |
| Double jeopardy (acquittal by implication) | Trial court’s inconsistent oral statements amounted to an acquittal barring retrial/conviction. | Webb failed to raise this claim below; even if considered, the court denied the directed verdict (so no acquittal); claim is unexhausted and forfeited. | Not considered on appeal (raised for first time); COA denied as to cognizable claims; court would reject claim on merits if considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (Barker four-factor speedy-trial test)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Dennis v. Poppel, 222 F.3d 1245 (state sentencing within statutory range typically not cognizable on federal habeas)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas courts do not reexamine state-law determinations)
- Tiger v. Workman, 445 F.3d 1265 (habeas review of jury instruction error requires showing instruction infected trial’s fairness)
- United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222 (Jackson standard applies to review of denial of judgment of acquittal)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard: overview and general assessment)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (COA standard when district court denies habeas relief)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default and exhaustion principles)
- Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (double jeopardy when court grants required acquittal then allows conviction)