Williams v. Trammell
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5826
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- June 22, 2004: Two masked gunmen robbed First Fidelity Bank in Tulsa; three people were shot and one (Amber Rogers) died. Williams was tried alone; Jordan was an accomplice.
- Physical and testimonial evidence linked Williams to the crime scene (DNA on a ski mask, matching shoeprint, possession of cash, eyewitness/corroborating testimony tying him to co-defendant and getaway driver). Williams admitted a prior May robbery but denied involvement in the June 22 robbery.
- Jury convicted Williams of first-degree murder (malice and felony theories), armed bank robbery, and related offenses; jury imposed death after finding two aggravators (great risk of death to multiple persons; continuing threat).
- Williams filed state direct appeal and post-conviction petitions; OCCA affirmed. He then sought federal habeas relief raising sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel (guilt and penalty phases), and cumulative error.
- The district court denied habeas relief but granted a COA on ineffective-assistance claims; this court also reviewed sufficiency and cumulative-prejudice claims and affirmed denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for malice murder (aiding/abetting) | Williams: Evidence insufficient because no proof he intended the death of the specific victim (Rogers) as required by prior OCCA precedent (Johnson) | State/OCCA: Aiding-and-abetting law permits conviction where aider knew/ shared the perpetrator’s intent or under general aiding language; OCCA applied earlier test and found intent shown | Court: Affirmed—viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, OCCA’s sufficiency determination was reasonable; evidence supported shared intent/ concerted action and Jackson standard met |
| Whether OCCA’s change to aiding-and-abetting mens rea violated due process/retroactivity | Williams: OCCA overruled Johnson without notice, invoking Rogers v. Tennessee due-process concerns | State: OCCA’s interpretation binds federal habeas courts; change was not "unexpected and indefensible" given prior authority | Court: Rejected Williams’s retroactivity/due-process claim; OCCA’s interpretation was within state-law bounds and not arbitrary; federal review limited to state-court record |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — guilt phase (various failures to object/impeach; counsel allegedly substance-impaired) | Williams: Lead counsel was impaired/constructively absent and otherwise failed to object, impeach witnesses, and counter prosecutorial misconduct, resulting in prejudice | State/OCCA: Counsel litigated vigorously; where errors existed they were harmless; no Cronic-level total failure; many complaints speculative or cumulative; state courts reasonably applied Strickland | Held: Strickland applies; no Cronic relief; OCCA reasonably found no deficient performance or no prejudice; habeas relief denied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — penalty phase (failure to investigate/present mitigation; Draper issues) | Williams: Counsel failed to investigate and prepare mitigation, failed to hire a mitigation specialist and to prepare Dr. Draper; new affidavits show prejudice | State: Many claims unexhausted or cumulative; OCCA considered mitigation and found counsel’s investigation reasonable; new evidence barred by AEDPA limits | Held: Part of Draper-based claim unexhausted and would be predictably barred on remand; on the merits, the presented mitigation was largely cumulative and no reasonable probability of a different verdict; no evidentiary hearing warranted under §2254(e)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard for convictions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (circumstances warranting presumed prejudice when counsel utterly fails)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (jury must find death-penalty-eligibility facts)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (capital eligibility for major participants with reckless indifference)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (Eighth Amendment bars execution of accessory without intent to kill)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court decisions on habeas review)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigation at capital sentencing)
- Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (state-court interpretations of state law bind federal habeas courts)