Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03009/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03009-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH F I L ~ D 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeu Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LESLIE DEWAYNE YARRINGTON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STEVEN J . DAVIES, Secretary of 

Corrections, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR 3 0 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-3009 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 89-3412-S) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Charles A. O'Hara of O'Hara, O'Hara & Tousley, Wichita, Kansas, 

for Petitioner-Appellant. 

JaLynn Copp, Assistant Attorney General, Topeka, Kansas, for 

Respondent-Appellee . 

Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable David L. Russell, District 

District Court for the Western District of 

designation. 

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

Judge, United States 

Oklahoma, sitting by 

Appellate Case: 92-3009 Document: 010110220239 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed . R. App . P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court 

denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. § 2254. Yarrington v . Davies, 779 F . Supp . 1304 (D. Kan. 

1991) . On appeal, he continues to argue that his trial counsel 

was ineffective because counsel misstated the burden of proof 

during voir dire and opening argument and because counsel did not 

object to inadmissible evidence. We affirm. 

Petitioner was convicted in Kansas state court of first 

degree murder. His conviction was affirmed . State v. Yarrington, 

708 P.2d 524 (Kan. 1985). After his two state petitions for 

post-conviction relief were denied, he commenced this action for 

federal habeas c orpus relief raising the issues listed above. 1 

The district court determined that petitioner was not denied 

effective assistance of counsel. Although the court found it 

difficult to understand how counsel could have misstated the 

burden o f proof during his voir dire and opening argument, the 

court determined that such misstatements were not "fatal to 

petitioner's cause nor to counsel's effectiveness. " Yarrington v. 

Davies, 779 F. Supp . at 1307. Because counsel correctly stated 

the proper bu rden during his closing argument and because the 

1 Petitioner also alleged that counsel was 

he did not properly voir dire the jury. 

c ontinue to assert this allegation on appeal. 

2 

ineffective because 

Petitioner does not 

Appellate Case: 92-3009 Document: 010110220239 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 2 
prosecution during voir dire and arguments and the trial judge 

during instructions correctly placed the burden of proof on the 

state and properly stated the presumption of innocence, the 

district court concluded petitioner's constitutional rights were 

not denied by counsel. Id. Also, the court concluded that 

petitioner was not denied counsel guaranteed by the Sixth 

Amendment or that but for counsel's error the outcome of the trial 

would have been different . Id. With regard to petitioner's 

allegation that counsel did not object to the introduction of 

certain evidence, the district court determined that although 

objection would have been proper, failure to object was not such 

that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different or 

that petitioner was denied counsel guaranteed by the Sixth 

Amendment . Id. at 1308. 

When a petitioner alleges a claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel, he must show both that counsel's performance was 

deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his 

defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984 ) ; see 

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 113 S. Ct. 838, 842 (1993). Counsel's 

performance is deficient when counsel does not function as counsel 

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland, 466 U. S. at 687. 

Deficient performance prejudices the defense when the errors are 

so serious as to deprive the petitioner of a fair trial with a 

reliable result. Id. We review a claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel de novo . Bail ey v . Cowley. 914 F . 2d 1438, 1440 {10th 

Cir. 1990). 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3009 Document: 010110220239 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 3 
Petitioner argues that his counsel was ineffective because 

counsel incorrectly placed the burden of proof on petitioner 

during voir dire and in the opening statement. During voir dire, 

counsel told the jury that petitioner must prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that he is not guilty and that counsel would 

attempt to prove him innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Appellant's App. at 126. Also, during the opening statement, 

counsel stated that he would attempt to prove petitioner's 

innocence. Id. at 3. As the district court recognized, however, 

counsel corrected his error during his closing statement and 

stated that the burden is on the state to prove petitioner's guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 14. Moreover, the state trial 

court instructed the jury that the statements, arguments, and 

remarks of counsel are not evidence. Id. at 707. 

the court instructed the jury 

Furthermore, 

The law places the burden upon the State to prove the 

Defendant is guilty. The law does not require the 

Defendant to prove his innocence. Accordingly, you must 

assume that the Defendant is innocent unless you are 

convinced from all of the evidence in the case that he 

is guilty. You should evaluate the evidence admitted in 

this case and determine whether the Defendant is guilty 

or not guilty entirely in accordance with these 

instructions. The test you must use is this: If you 

have no reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the 

claims made by t he State, you should find the Defendant 

guilty. If you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth 

of any of the claims made by the State, you should find 

the Defendant not guilty. 

Id. at 707-08. 

In concluding that petitioner's trial counsel was not 

ineffective, the di strict court cited Mahorney v. Wallman, 917 

F . 2d 469 {10th Cir. 1990). Although we agree with the district 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-3009 Document: 010110220239 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 4 
court's conclusion that petitioner did not prove that counsel was 

ineffective, we believe that Mahorney is distinguishable from this 

case. 

In Mahorney, the prosecutor made misstatements concerning the 

presumption of innocence during voir dire and closing arguments. 

Recognizing that ordinarily claims of prosecutorial misconduct and 

other trial errors are reviewed on habeas under the fundamental 

fairness standard set forth in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 

637 (1974), this court determined that "when the impropriety 

complained of effectively deprived the defendant of a specific 

constitutional right, a habeas claim may be established without 

requiring proof that the entire trial was thereby rendered 

fundamentally unfair." Mahorney, 917 F.2d at 472. Because the 

presumption of innocence is constitutionally rooted, this court 

refused to be constrained by the fundamental fairness standard 

under the circumstances in Mahorney. Id. 

Unlike the prosecutor's remarks in Mahorney. trial counsel's 

misstatements in this case did not prejudice a specific 

constitutional right so as to amount to a denial of that right. 

See Donnelly, 416 U.S . at 643. It is settled that the presumption 

of innocence remains with the defendant throughout every stage of 

trial, including jury deliberations. Mahorney, 917 F.2d at 471 

n.2. That presumption, despite counsel's negligent misstatements 

of the burden of proof at voir dire and during his opening 

argument, did remain with petitioner throughout the trial. Cf. 

id. at 473 (prosecutor's comments conveyed to jury the presumption 

had been eliminated prior to deliberations). The prosecutor at 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-3009 Document: 010110220239 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 5 
all times correctly stated the burde n of proof; trial counsel 

later, during his closing argument, stated the proper burden of 

proof; and the state trial court correctly instructed the jury as 

to the burden of proof. Therefore, there was no constitutional 

violation like that in Mahorney. 

Furthermore, counsel's initial misstatements did not make 

petitioner's trial so fundamentally unfair as to deny petitioner 

due process. See Donnelly. 416 U.S. at 645. Accordingly, we 

conclude that even though the district court based its conclusion 

on erroneous reasoning, it correctly concluded petitioner's Sixth 

Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not denied 

by counsel's misstatements of the burden of proof. See McGee v. 

Eguicor-Eguitable HCA Corp,, 953 F.2d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir. 

1992) (court of appeals can affirm on other grounds when district 

court bases its conclusion on erroneous reasoning); Bath v. 

National Ass'n of Intercollegiate Athletics, 843 F.2d 1315, 1317 

(10th Cir. 1988) (same). 

Petitioner also argues 

because he failed to object 

that his 

to the 

counsel was ineffective 

introduction of certain 

evidence. Primarily, petitioner contends counsel failed to object 

to hearsay, including statements of Crissy Merrill, who invoked 

the protections of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self 

incrimination. Petitioner sets forth specific examples of the 

alleged inadmissible evidence in his brief on appeal. See Brief 

of Appellant at 3-8 . 

Counsel's actions are usually based on strategic choices. 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. Mere failure to object to evidence 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-3009 Document: 010110220239 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 6 
does not render an attorney ineffective. Watson v. Marshall, 784 

F.2d 722, 726 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1107 (1986 ) . 

In this case, petitioner's attorney, on at least one occasion, did 

move to strike hearsay. See, e.g., Appellant's App. at 299-300. 

Thus, petitioner has not overcome the presumption that counsel's 

failure to object at other times may have been trial strategy. 

See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. 

Nonetheless, courts need not determine whether counsel's 

performance was deficient before examining prejudice. Id. at 697 . 

Petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that 

but for counsel's failure to object, the result of the proceeding 

would have been different. Id. at 694. "When a defendant 

challenges a conviction, the question is whether there is a 

reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the fact-finder 

would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt . ... In 

making this determination, a court hearing an ineffectiveness 

claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the. 

jury." Id. at 695; see also United States v. Soto Hernandez, 849 

F.2d 1325, 1330 (10th Cir. 1988) (most useful way to judge 

counsel's performance during trial is by careful review of 

record) . 

Under Fed. R. App. P. lO(b) (2), the appellant is given the 

responsibility of providing us with the appropriate record for 

appeal. Deines v . Vermeer Mfg. Co . , 969 F . 2d 977, 978 (10th Cir. 

1992 ) . "Moreover, 'it is counsel's responsibility to see that the 

record excerpts are sufficient for consideration and determination 

of the issues on appeal and the court is under no obligation to 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-3009 Document: 010110220239 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 7 
remedy any failure of counsel to fulfill that r e sponsibility.'" 

Id. at 979 (quoting General Order, 10th Cir. , Oct . 25, 1990, p.5 ) ; 

see 10th Cir. R. 10.3. Petitioner has not provided a sufficient 

record for us to review this argument . Nonetheless, because of 

the seriousness of a conviction of first degree murder, we sua 

sponte obtained the trial transcript. See, e.g., Cox v. Un i ted 

States, 881 F.2d 893, 894 n.l (10th Cir. 1989 ) . 

After reading the transcript of the trial, we agree with the 

district court's determinations that while objections to the 

hearsay evidence would have been proper, the failure to object did 

not cause petitioner's counsel to be ineffective or cause the 

outcome of the tri al to be different . Yarrington v. Davies, 779 

F . Supp . at 1308 . Additionally, the result of the proceeding was 

not "fundamentally unfair or unreliable . " Lockhart, 113 S . Ct. at 

842 . 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

8 

Appellate Case: 92-3009 Document: 010110220239 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 8