JAMES CODDINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TOMMY SHARP, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6295
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
May 12, 2020
EID, Circuit Judge.
PUBLISH. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-01457-HE). FILED May 12, 2020. Christopher M. Wolpert, Clerk of Court.
Caroline E.J. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General (Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma, with her on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before LUCERO, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges.
EID, Circuit Judge.
I.
In March of 1997, Coddington, who had a history of cocaine use, relapsed and began using cocaine again. Coddington v. State, 142 P.3d 437, 442 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). He spent approximately $1,000 per day to support his habit. See id. Eventually, he ran out of money. See id. On March 5, following a three or four-day cocaine binge, he was desperate for cocaine and robbed a convenience store. See id. But the money he took from the store was insufficient, so later that day he went over to Al Hale‘s house. See id. Hale and Coddington were friends, and Coddington knew that Hale usually kept large sums of cash (on March 5, Hale had over $24,000 in cash in his home). See id.
Coddington did not immediately ask Hale for money—he watched TV with him for a couple hours. See id. At some point though, Coddington asked Hale if he could borrow some money. See id. According to Coddington, Hale could tell that Coddington
Coddington was mistaken; Hale was not dead. See id. at 443. Hale‘s son, Ron, discovered his father later that day. See id. There was “blood and blood spatter everywhere.” Id. “Hale was lying in his bed, soaked in blood, still breathing but unable to speak.” Id. Hale had moved from the kitchen to his bedroom. See id. Hale was rushed to a hospital, where he died 24 hours later. See id. The autopsy showed he died from blunt-force trauma to the head. See id.
After Coddington left Hale‘s house, Coddington immediately bought more cocaine and continued committing crimes to finance his purchases. He robbed five more convenience stores. See id. at 442. When he eventually got back home, he threw the hammer in a creek behind his apartment. See id. at 455.
At the station, Coddington was able to recall the murder in detail. See State Ex. 89 at 13–21 (Transcript of Police Station Interview); see also 2003 Tr. VI 47–48, 62–63. He recalled the clothes he wore, that he and Hale conversed for a couple hours, that they watched TV, that he had gone to Hale‘s home to ask for money, that Hale refused his request for money, that Hale then asked him to leave, and that he struck Hale with a claw hammer as Hale was showing him out. See State Ex. 89 at 14–15. He also remembered specific details about the hammer—that it had a chrome handle with a rubber grip. See id. at 20. He remembered how many times he struck Hale. See id. at 15. He remembered how much money he took from Hale‘s person and the denominations of the bills. See id. at 18. Finally, he stated that he did not call the police when he left Hale‘s home because he did not want to get caught. See Coddington, 142 P.3d at 443.
Second, the court considered Coddington‘s motion to suppress his confession. See id. at 446–48. Coddington believed that he did not knowingly or voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. See id. The court did not agree and denied the motion. See id.
The case proceeded to trial. At the guilt phase of trial, the jury convicted Coddington of first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. See id. at 442. At the sentencing phase, the jury found the existence of two aggravating circumstances and sentenced Coddington to death. See id. Coddington appealed his conviction and sentence to the OCCA. See id. Among other things, he challenged the pretrial rulings (1) denying his motion to suppress his confession and (2) excluding a portion of Dr. Smith‘s testimony. See id. at 446–51. The OCCA first concluded that Coddington‘s confession was sufficiently knowing and voluntary, but it agreed with Coddington that the trial court erred by restricting Dr. Smith‘s testimony. See id. The OCCA summarily determined
The OCCA similarly rejected Coddington‘s other guilt-phase arguments and affirmed his conviction. It did, however, find that reversible error occurred at the sentencing phase. See id. at 461.† It therefore vacated Coddington‘s death sentence and remanded for resentencing. See id. At resentencing, the jury found the existence of aggravating circumstances and again sentenced Coddington to death. Coddington v. State, 254 P.3d 684, 693 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011). The OCCA affirmed, see id. at 718, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, see Coddington v. Oklahoma, 565 U.S. 1040 (2011). Coddington then filed a petition for post-conviction relief with the OCCA. Coddington v. State, 259 P.3d 833 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011). The OCCA denied the petition. See id. at 840. Subsequently, Coddington filed a
In his
II.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the standard under which we review the district court‘s disposition of a state petitioner‘s habeas petition depends on how the claim at issue was resolved in the state court. Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159, 1165 (10th Cir. 2011). Here, because the issues in Coddington‘s habeas petition were already adjudicated on the merits by the OCCA, “we review the district court‘s legal analysis of the state court decision de novo.” Littlejohn v. Trammell, 704 F.3d 817, 825 (10th Cir. 2013). We therefore—like the district court before us—review the OCCA decision under the AEDPA deference standards.
The AEDPA,
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim--
resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or - resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
A decision is contrary to federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Valdez v. Bravo, 373 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted) (alterations in original). Relatedly, a decision is an unreasonable application of federal law “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court‘s] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner‘s case.” Id. (same). Finally, a federal court may only grant habeas relief if “there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court‘s decision conflicts with the Supreme Court‘s precedents.” Frost v. Pryor, 749 F.3d 1212, 1223 (10th Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted).
III.
In his first claim for relief, Coddington argues that the trial court deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense when it refused to allow his expert to testify that he was unable to form the requisite intent for malice murder, and that the OCCA wrongfully concluded that the trial court‘s error was harmless. We affirm the district court‘s denial of this claim, concluding that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply
A.
On direct appeal, a state appellate court evaluates a state trial court‘s federal constitutional error for harmlessness. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). Specifically, the court considers whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the federal constitutional error was harmless. See id. When a state court‘s Chapman decision is reviewed by a federal court under AEDPA, “a federal court may not award habeas relief under
The Brecht test for harmlessness also applies to Coddington‘s claim that the trial court‘s rejection of Dr. Smith‘s testimony separately amounted to a violation of due
B.
As a preliminary matter, the state argues that Coddington has not shown the existence of a constitutional error sufficient to trigger Chapman/Brecht. See Resp.‘s Br. at 16 (“[T]he application of the Brecht harmless error standard presupposes the existence of an actual federal constitutional error.“). It contends that expert testimony on the ultimate issue of intent is generally not allowed in the federal system because it is prohibited by
We disagree. Even if a state law violation cannot be tied to the denial of a specific federal constitutional right (such as the right to present a defense), it is still reviewed to determine whether the violation “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 12 (2004). And whether we analyze Coddington‘s claim as a violation of a specific constitutional right or as a violation of constitutional due process, we still must determine whether the alleged error was harmless. See Patton, 425 F.3d at 800 (“[A]ny trial errors will be deemed harmless unless they had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the verdict. . . . If we are in grave doubt as to the harmlessness of an error, the habeas petitioner must prevail.“).
Because we ultimately conclude that the trial court‘s error in excluding a portion of Dr. Smith‘s testimony was harmless, see infra, we need not determine whether the error committed by the trial court amounted to a violation of a specific constitutional right or a more general constitutional due process violation. Instead, we “assume, without deciding, that the error[ ] [Coddington] identifies . . . [is] of constitutional magnitude.” Malone v. Carpenter, 911 F.3d 1022, 1032 n.1 (10th Cir. 2018) (rejecting
C.
The OCCA concluded that, even if Dr. Smith had been permitted to testify on intent, the jury would have still found malice aforethought. See Coddington, 142 P.3d at 451. Coddington argues that the OCCA‘s harmlessness determination was unreasonable because, while he was allowed to present substantial testimony about the effects of cocaine use, none of the evidence went to whether he was able to form the requisite intent. See Pet‘r Br. at 17–26. After reviewing the state court record, we do not find that the exclusion had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury‘s verdict. First, though he was unable to present testimony explicitly asserting that his cocaine use might have precluded his ability to form malice aforethought, Coddington was permitted to present copious testimony on how his cocaine use negatively affected his rationality and self-awareness. Second, it was disputed as to whether Coddington was even intoxicated at the time of the murder. And third, the excluded testimony would have been heavily contradicted by other evidence in the record indicating that Coddington not only was capable of self-awareness, but that he indeed hit Hale with the deliberate intent “to take away [his] life.” See Criminal Appeal Original Record (C.A.O.R.) I at 88 (jury instruction defining “malice aforethought“).
1.
Even without Dr. Smith‘s excluded testimony, the jury considered evidence regarding Coddington‘s cocaine use and the ill-effects of such use on his brain. Dr.
Dr. Smith then applied these general statements about cocaine use to Coddington in particular. He noted that Coddington‘s cocaine use “had a marked effect on [Coddington‘s] brain function” the day of the murder. See id. at 92.
It made him -- it had multiple effects on his brain function. His paranoia, his fearfulness, his belief he was being followed and watched constantly, his desperation to get more cocaine, his over-responsiveness to stimulation of any kind, including touching. So I think it markedly affected his ability to exercise reasonable judgment and control.
Id. Dr. Smith also told the jury that Coddington‘s cocaine binge likely made these effects even worse. Specifically, it likely made it “difficult for [Coddington] to control his behavior.” See 2003 Tr. VI at 5. He testified that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Coddington was not thinking reasonably or rationally. See id. at 6.§
2.
With or without the excluded portion, the jury might have disregarded Dr. Smith‘s testimony altogether if it found that Coddington was not “intoxicated” at the time of the murder. Coddington offered Dr. Smith‘s testimony to support his intoxication defense, which applies where the defendant‘s “mental powers” were so “overcome with intoxication” that it would have been “impossible [for him] to form the special state of mind known as malice aforethought.” C.A.O.R. I at 106 (Jury Instruction 39) (emphasis added). But Dr. Smith‘s testimony focused less on how a person behaves while intoxicated from cocaine and more on how repeated cocaine use can damage a person‘s brain. He explained that cocaine can impair a person‘s judgment and self-awareness by damaging their pre-frontal cortex. He described these effects not necessarily as cocaine intoxication, but instead as “cocaine dependency.” 2003 Tr. V at 81. And it is unclear
With the above said, the jury considered evidence that Coddington likely was not “high” at the time of the murder. Dr. Smith informed the jury that the “high” from cocaine can last anywhere from several minutes to several hours. Id. at 94. On numerous occasions, Dr. Smith described the effects of cocaine as “momentary.” Id. at 64, 66. His testimony further suggested that smoking—which was Coddington‘s typical method of ingestion—crack cocaine typically resulted in a “quicker” high. Id. at 63. With that said, Coddington was at Hale‘s house for roughly two to three hours before he murdered Hale. Therefore, for Coddington to have been intoxicated with cocaine at the time of the murder, he likely would have either had to have smoked cocaine while at Hale‘s house, or potentially immediately before arriving there.
And whether Coddington had indeed smoked cocaine while—or immediately before—visiting Hale was in dispute during the trial. Coddington testified at trial that he smoked cocaine in Hale‘s bathroom during the visit. 2003 Tr. VI at 47. And Dr. Smith testified that Coddington had allegedly smoked cocaine sometime before arriving at Hale‘s house. Id. at 29. However, this testimony contrasts with Coddington‘s original confession during which he described the murder and surrounding events in detail, yet never alleged that he had smoked crack cocaine in Hale‘s bathroom. Id. at 55; State Ex. 89.
Moreover, in contrast to the above testimony, other evidence showed that it was implausible for Coddington to have possessed and smoked cocaine at those alleged times.
The jury therefore considered evidence suggesting that Coddington likely did not ingest cocaine immediately before or during his visit with Hale, and that the effects of any cocaine he smoked earlier in the day likely would have receded by the time of the
3.
Even if the jury believed that Coddington was under the influence of cocaine—from either a “high” or other cocaine-related effects—at the time of the murder, it still likely would have found Coddington was capable of forming the requisite intent of malice aforethought. Coddington testified that though he decided to take the cash from Hale‘s pocket, he deliberately refrained from taking Hale‘s diamond ring because he “couldn‘t do that.” State Ex. 89 at 15. Therefore, if Coddington was indeed “high” at the time of the murder, his actions immediately thereafter showed that he was nonetheless capable of self-awareness during that period. Additionally, while allegedly “high on cocaine,” Coddington successfully robbed three venues and intentionally began targeting gas stations because they were more likely to carry cash. 2003 Tr. VI 58, 80; State Ex. 89 at 4–7, 9, 11. And during one of these robberies, Coddington devised a scheme in which he first scoped-out the venue while pretending to buy a soft drink, then—after ensuring the store was empty—returned with a knife so that he could rob the clerk. Id. at 57.
Further, the available evidence showed not only that Coddington was capable of self-awareness at the time of the murder, but that he indeed had formed malice aforethought when killing Hale. We agree with the OCCA that “the circumstances surrounding [t]his murder suggest it was committed with intent. Coddington attacked
4.
In sum, we conclude that Coddington was not prejudiced by the trial court‘s decision to exclude Dr. Smith‘s testimony that, in his opinion, Coddington “would not have been able to form the intent of malice aforethought” while “experiencing the effects of the cocaine.” 2003 Tr. V at 81. Despite the exclusion, the jury still heard evidence about how cocaine could have made Coddington unaware of what he was doing. And even with the excluded testimony, the jury still would have had to grapple with whether Coddington was indeed intoxicated at the time of the murder. Regardless, Dr. Smith‘s excluded testimony would have been contradicted by evidence showing not only that Coddington was capable of self-awareness at the time of the murder, but that he repeatedly hit Hale with the intent to deliberately take away his life. Given this, we simply cannot conclude that no “fairminded jurist could agree with the [OCCA‘s] decision that,” beyond a reasonable doubt, Dr. Smith‘s testimony regarding intent would
IV.
In his second claim for relief, Coddington argues that his confession to the murder should have been suppressed because he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. We find that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply federal law in concluding that Coddington‘s waiver was both knowing and voluntary. Neither the delay between Coddington‘s confession and the station-house interrogation, nor Coddington‘s drug use, were sufficient to render his confession unknowing or involuntary.
A.
Testimony from a custodial interrogation will be suppressed if the prisoner did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. See Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 292 (1988); see also Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). This “inquiry has two distinct dimensions.” Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986).
First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.
“We engage in a totality of the circumstances approach, where no single factor—whether intoxication, exhaustion, or other—is dispositive.” United States v. Burson, 531 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2008). However, one circumstance that is not relevant to our analysis is whether the suspect was aware of each possible subject of questioning. See Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 577 (1987) (“[A] suspect‘s awareness of all the possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Fifth Amendment privilege.” (emphasis added)). Additionally, “[t]he mere fact of drug or alcohol use will not” render a confession unknowing or involuntary. Burson, 531 F.3d at 1258. Drug use will only render a confession unknowing if it rises “to the level of substantial impairment.” Id. (“The defendant must produce evidence showing his condition was such that it rose to the level of substantial impairment [because] . . . [o]nly then could we conclude the government has failed to prove the defendant possessed full awareness of both the nature of his rights and the consequences of waiving them.“). Likewise, drug use will render a confession involuntary only if the suspect‘s “will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession.” United States v. Smith, 606 F.3d 1270, 1276–77 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted).
B.
Coddington advances several arguments for why his waiver was unknowing and involuntary. See Pet‘r Br. at 30–39. First, he contends that the officers misled him about the nature of their questioning. Specifically, Coddington believes that the officers told
Second, Coddington argues that the interrogation at the police station occurred 2.5 to 3 hours after the officers initially read him his Miranda rights at his home. He believes that this time gap between his waiver and the interrogation rendered his confession unknowing. This argument overlooks key facts. First, before the police officers interrogated Coddington at the police station, they asked him if he remembered being advised of—and subsequently waiving—his Miranda rights several hours earlier; and Coddington replied in the affirmative. Id. at 447; State Ex. 89 at 1–2. This court has found that such a reminder under similar circumstances was adequate. See Burson, 531 F.3d at 1259 (concluding the defendant “knew his constitutional rights” where the interrogating officer “asked [the defendant] if he remembered the Miranda warning he was given at the time of his arrest less than two hours earlier” and the defendant “responded affirmatively“). Second, Coddington had previous encounters with law enforcement and was familiar with his Miranda rights. The Tenth Circuit has previously held that a suspect‘s knowledge of Miranda rights from previous encounters with law
Third, Coddington contends that he could not have knowingly or voluntarily waived his rights because he was intoxicated and sleep-deprived. It is well established that intoxication alone will not render a confession involuntary. The intoxication must rise to the level of “substantial impairment” to render the confession unknowing. See Burson, 531 F.3d at 1258, 1260 (finding that the defendant—who was allegedly “exhausted” and under the influence of drugs during an interrogation—voluntarily and knowingly waived his rights where his “mental faculties were sufficient for him to engage in an intelligent, rational dialogue with [the officer]“). Similarly, for intoxication to render a confession involuntary, the circumstances of the confession must show that the suspect‘s will was overborne. See Smith, 606 F.3d at 1276–77.
The OCCA‘s decision was consistent with these legal principles. Looking first to the knowingness of Coddington‘s confession, the OCCA observed that “[s]elf-induced intoxication, short of mania, or such an impairment of the will and mind as to make the person confessing unconscious of the meaning of his words, will not render a confession inadmissible, but goes only to the weight to be accorded to it.” Coddington, 142 P.3d at 448 (quotations omitted). The OCCA then held that Coddington‘s will was not
Coddington also argued before the OCCA, as he does here, that his heightened intoxication is demonstrated by the fact that he confessed to crimes that authorities in Oklahoma were unable to corroborate. However, we agree with the OCCA that this fact on its own “does not show he was so intoxicated that his Miranda waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made.” Id. Coddington confessed to numerous crimes that Oklahoma was able to verify, and he recalled specific details from those crimes.
Finally, the OCCA did not unreasonably apply federal law in concluding that Coddington‘s drug use did not render his confession involuntary. See id. at 447–48. The totality of the circumstances demonstrate that Coddington was aware of his surroundings and that the officers did not pressure or coerce him into confessing. Accordingly, even if Coddington was intoxicated at the time of the confession, Coddington has not shown that his “will was overborne.” Smith, 606 F.3d at 1276 (quotation marks omitted).
V.
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court‘s denial of Coddington‘s petition for habeas relief.