Young v. Addison
490 F. App'x 960
10th Cir.2012Background
- Young, a former Oklahoma prisoner, sought COA to appeal §2254 denial; claims included ineffective assistance, due process, and cumulative error.
- Federal investigators surveilled Young for marijuana transport; he was detained after brandishing a box cutter and read Miranda rights.
- Plane search occurred with K-9 alert, yielding 421 bricks of marijuana; Enid police later corroborated results but initial search by federal agents occurred before officers arrived.
- Young was convicted in state court of trafficking; direct and post-conviction state appeals failed.
- District court denied petition and COA; magistrate judge recommended denial of habeas relief; appellate court reviews require COA for §2254 petitions.
- On appeal, Young challenged procedural rules, ineffective assistance, and cumulative error, which the court ultimately denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel’s performance was reasonable | Young (Young) contends counsel failed to raise 15 identified claims. | OCCA’s decision reasonable; counsel adequate given scope. | COA denied; no debatable issue exists. |
| Procedural compliance and incorporation by reference | Rule 10(c) allows incorporation; district court erred. | In this circuit, incorporation by reference not permitted; 30-page limit applied. | District court did not err; appeal arguments insufficient. |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (Strickland review on habeas) | Appellate counsel violated Strickland by not raising numerous issues. | OCCA’s adjudication reasonable; no deficient performance shown. | No reasonable jurists could debate the decision; COA denied. |
| Cumulative error and due process claims | Cumulative errors violated due process. | No cumulative errors identified. | No merit; COA denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (deficient performance must prejudice the defense)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (unreasonable-state-court decision review standard for habeas)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (requiring substantial showing to obtain COA)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA substantial showing standard for federal review)
- House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 2008) (factual-presumption and standard when reviewing state-court factual determinations)