Wood v. Allbaugh, 17-6052

Michael W. Wood, an Oklahoma inmate, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and received life without parole.
Wood filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising multiple claims attacking the voluntariness and factual basis of his plea and counsel’s effectiveness.
The district court’s initial disposition was reversed on appeal and remanded per Wood v. McCollum, directing reconsideration consistent with Moore v. Schoeman.
On remand Wood amended his petition to omit an unexhausted claim and proceeded on six claims, including: lack of on-the-record competency colloquy, misunderstanding of potential sentence, inadequate factual basis for plea, ineffective assistance (failure to investigate/call witnesses), cumulative error, and counsel’s affirmative misrepresentation of sentence.
The magistrate judge issued a detailed Report and Recommendation; the district court adopted it, denied relief (applying AEDPA deference to issues adjudicated on direct appeal), and rejected the factual-basis claim as non-constitutional.
Wood sought a certificate of appealability (COA); this court reviewed the record under Miller-El and Slack and denied a COA, concluding reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea was involuntary because court failed to establish competency on the record	Wood: court did not establish competency; plea therefore involuntary	State/District: OCCA addressed related claims; AEDPA deference applies and record supports voluntariness	Denied COA; not debatable that OCCA/district rulings were reasonable
Whether plea was unknowing because Wood misunderstood potential sentence	Wood: he misunderstood the sentence exposure	State/District: record and counsel’s representations adequate; Strickland/Hill standards not met	Denied COA; no reasonable debate under controlling standards
Whether an adequate factual basis for the plea existed	Wood: plea lacked sufficient factual basis supporting guilt	State/District: claim not a federal constitutional issue absent claim of factual innocence; OCCA found sufficient factual basis	Denied COA; even if substantive, OCCA’s ruling was reasonable
Whether counsel was ineffective by affirmatively misrepresenting the sentence	Wood: counsel misrepresented sentence, constituting ineffective assistance under Hill/Strickland	State/District: Wood failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland/Hill; claim may be unexhausted but denied on the merits	Denied COA; Strickland/Hill burden not satisfied

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (courts need only establish factual basis for plea when defendant asserts innocence)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standards for ineffective-assistance claims challenging guilty pleas)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for counsel ineffectiveness)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for COA review; preliminary consideration of claims)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for granting a COA)
Wood v. McCollum, 833 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir.) (prior appellate remand directing reconsideration)
Moore v. Schoeman, 288 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2002) (procedural guidance relied on in remand)