Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07046/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07046-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Cowley
Appellee
Johnny L. Hardeman
Appellant
Robert H. Henry
Appellee

Document Text:

, FI LED 

Uoired Scares Courc of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SEP 11 1990 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JOHNNY L. HARDEMAN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY, Warden; ROBERT H. HENRY, 

Attorney General, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 89-7046 

(D.C. No. 88-616-C) 

( E . D. Okla. ) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal by Johnny L. Hardeman from the district 

court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Hardeman contends the district court erred in finding that: (1) 

there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) none 

of the evidentiary error at trial resulted in fundamental 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-7046 Document: 010110042151 Date Filed: 09/11/1990 Page: 1 
• 

unfairness; and (3) there was no ineffective assistance of 

counsel. We affirm. 

We review sufficiency of the evidence in a habeas proceeding 

to determine whether there is evidence in the record from which a 

rational trier of fact, when viewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the defendant 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson :Y..!.. Virginia, 443 

U.S. 307 (1979). We agree with the district court that sufficient 

evidence supports the conviction. The evidence at trial clearly 

established a motive, established that Hardeman was seen with the 

deceased shortly before her murder, and adequately showed the time 

and manner of death. The lack of direct eyewitness testimony that 

Hardeman actually committed the murder is not necessary; the state 

may prove its case circumstantially. The district court did not 

err in rejecting Hardeman's sufficiency of the evidence 

challenges. 

We next turn to Hardeman's evidentiary challenges. We will 

upset a conviction on evidentiary grounds only if the rulings 

rendered the trial so fundamentally unfair as to constitute a 

denial of federal constitutional rights. See Gillihan :Y..!.. 

Rodriguez, 551 F.2d 1182, 1192-93 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 

U.S. 835 (1977). Hardeman contends that the state trial court 

erred in admitting evidence that the deceased would have testified 

that Hardeman was involved in the Morgan murder. We disagree. 

Such testimony was clearly admissible to show Hardeman's possible 

motive for the murder of the deceased. We cannot say this error 

was "fundamental." 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-7046 Document: 010110042151 Date Filed: 09/11/1990 Page: 2 
' 

• 

We likewise reject Hardeman's contention that the state trial 

court improperly discounted the recantation of witness Chaplin. 

As we noted in United States Y.=... Ahern, 612 F.2d SOT, 509 (10th 

Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1093 (1981), recantations are 

looked upon with "downright suspicion." The state court held a 

full evidentiary hearing on the recantation and determined it was 

without merit. We are bound to treat such fact findings as 

determinative unless grounds for their being set aside are 

advanced. See 28 u.s.c. § 2254(d). No such grounds are advanced, 

and we find none in the record. The district court did not err in 

rejecting this ground for relief. 

Hardeman also challenges two prosecutorial actions as 

violating Brady Y.=... Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The first is the 

admission of a footprint cast taken from the area in which the 

body was found. The cast apparently did not match Hardeman's foot 

size. Testimony also revealed, however, that the footprint could 

not be definitively attributed to the time of the murder. 

Hardeman contends that he was not told of this footprint cast 

before trial. We do not find that Hardeman objected to the 

admission of this information. In any event, the footprint cast 

was fully discussed in trial, and Hardeman's counsel crossexamined the issue intensively. We agree with the district court 

that Hardeman was not substantially prejudiced by either the 

admission of this cast, or by its withholding from pretrial 

notification, if such in fact did occur. The cast simply is not 

very probative of either guilt or innocence. In any event, the 

jury had all the evidence before it. We find no constitutional 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-7046 Document: 010110042151 Date Filed: 09/11/1990 Page: 3 
i 

II 

error in the trial court's handling of the footprint cast. We 

similarly find no error in the prosecution's withholding of the 

names of two other initial suspects in the murder. 

In summary, we find that none of the alleged evidentiary 

errors, either by themselves or in total, are sufficient to have 

rendered Hardeman's trial fundamentally unfair. 

Hardeman's last ground for relief is ineffective assistance 

of counsel. We note that Strickland Y....!.. Taylor, 466 U.S. 668 

(1984), cautions that counsel is presumed to have rendered 

adequate assistance. Hardeman's principal complaint about 

appellate counsel's performance is counsel's failure to raise the 

"other crimes" evidence in the Morgan murder. As we noted above, 

the use of that evidence was proper to show Hardeman's possible 

motive for murdering the deceased. We cannot say that the 

appellate counsel fell below the Strickland standard by failing to 

raise the "other crimes" evidence. Hardeman has not challenged 

his counsel's performance otherwise. We find no ineffective 

assistance. 

We GRANT the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We DENY 

the certificate of probable cause because we find that Hardeman 

has not made a substantial showing of a denial of an important 

federal right. See Barefoot Y....!.. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). 

APPEAL DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

4 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-7046 Document: 010110042151 Date Filed: 09/11/1990 Page: 4