T he ca s e i s unani m ous l yor der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent * pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) and 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay23,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT HEZEK I AH J OEL C OLB ERT, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. RO N WARD; S T AT E OF OKL AHOMA, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 6314 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV- 1 4 1 - R) (W .D . O k la .)

OR DER * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. H e z e k iah J. C o lb e rt, a s tate p riso n e r a p p e a lin g p ro se , req u e sts a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l t i y( “C O A ”) t o appea l t he deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s p e t i t i o n . F o rs u b s t a n t i a l l yth e s a me r e a s o n s a s s e tfo r th b yt h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . C olber t , w ho w as r epresent ed b ycou nsel , pled guil tyt o o ne fe l on yoffense of ca rry i ng a w eapon w i th unl aw ful i nt entaft erform erconvi ct i on of a fel ony , and- 2 -

one mi s demeanoroffe ns e of unl aw ful l ycarry i ng a w eapon. T he s t at e di s tr i ct courts ent ence d hi m t o 126 m onths i n pr i s on. T en day s l at er , C ol bertfi l ed a m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea on the gr ound thathi s pl ea w as not“know i ng and vol unt ary ” and that entr y of the pl ea w as “contr ary t o appl i cabl e l aw . ” T he s ta te d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d th is m o tio n . C ol bertthen fi l ed tw o appl i cat i ons forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, eac h a tte m p tin g to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a . B oth appl i cat i ons w er e cons trued byt he O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( “O C C A ”) as s eeki ng an out - of- t i m e appe al wi th r e s p e c tt o h i s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w h i s g u i l typ l e a , a n d t h u s t h e OCCA d e c lin e d to e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r h is a p p e a ls . Fol l ow i ng thes e deni al s , C ol bertfi l ed anotherm ot i on w i th the s t at e di s t r i ct c o u rt to w ith d ra w h is g u iltyp lea . F in d in g th a t C o lb e rt k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ily ent er ed i nt o hi s pl eas , the s t at e di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed thi s m ot i on. N ew couns el fro m the O k laho m a In d igen t D efen se sy stem ap p ea led th e state d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of C ol bert ’ s m ot i on t o t he O C C A , as s ert i ng that( 1) t he tr i al courterr ed by deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl eas , ( 2) r ever s i bl e err oroccurr ed w hen the tr i al courtacc ept ed hi s pl ea w i thouti nform i ng hi m of the el ement s of e a c h o ffe n se c h a rg e d , an d (3 ) h is p lea w a s in v a lid b e c a u se th e trial c o u rt fa iled to e sta b lish a n a d e q u a te fa c tu a l b a sis fo r h is p lea . O C C A a ffirm e d th e d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u iltyp lea , an d fo u n d th a t b e c a u se h e fa iled to ra ise h is s e c o n d o r t h ir d a rg u m e n ts a t th e tr ia l c o u rt le v e l th o s e c la im s w e re w a iv e d .C ol bert ’ s pet i t i on w as fi l ed af t erA pr i l 24, 1996, t he effec t i ve dat e of the 1 A n ti terrori sm an d E ffec ti v e D ea th P en altyA ct (“A E D P A ”); as a re su lt , A E D P A ’s p ro v is io n s a p p ly to th is c a s e . S e e R o g e rs v . G ib s o n , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 2 n .1 ( 10 th Ci r . 19 99 ) ( c i t i ng Li nd h v . M urph y , 52 1 U. S. 32 0 ( 19 97 ) ) . A ED PA condi t i ons a pet i t i oner ' s r i ghtt o appea l a deni al of habe as r el i ef unde r§ 2254 u p o n a g ra n t o f

a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). A C O A m a yb e iss u e d “ o n lyif the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal rig h t.” § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is re q u ire s C o lb e rt to sh o w “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether( or , forthatm att er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 4 8 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) . Be c a u s e t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r td e n i e d Co l b e r ta CO A, h e m a yn o t ap p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n a b se n t a g ra n t o f C O A b yth is c o u rt . - 3 - A f ter th e O C C A a ffirm e d th e sta te d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to w i thdr aw hi s pl ea, C ol bertfi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on i n fede r al di s tr i ctcour tr ai s i ng fiv e a rg u m e n ts . H e ar gued that( 1) he di d notknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yent er i nt o hi s gui l typl ea; ( 2) the evi dence agai ns thi m w as obt ai ned as a r es ul tof an unl aw ful s ear ch and s ei zur e i n vi ol at i on of the Four th A m endment ; ( 3) he r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance fr om hi s t r i al couns el ; ( 4) he w as deni ed the r i ght to a n a p p e a l an d to a fa ir a n d sp e e d ytrial, a n d (5 ) th e p ro se c u to r e n g a g e d in m is c o n d u c t d u ri n g s e n te n c in g . T h is p e titio n w a s d e n ie d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . H avi ng fai l ed t o obt ai n a C O A fr om t hatcourt , C ol bertnow s eeks a C O A fr om th is c o u rt. 1 O n appea l , C ol bertr ai s es fourar gum ent s . Fi r s t , he ar gues t hathe r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el beca us e he t ol d hi s couns el he thoughthe w ant ed t o g o t o tr i a l , b u tth a th i s c o u n s e l n e v e rd i s c u s s e d p r e p a r a t i o n fo rt r i a l wi th h i m,- 4 -

i ns i s t ed thatC ol bertpl ead gui l ty , and i nform ed C ol bertthati n excha nge for pl eadi ng gui l tyhe w oul d r ece i ve pr obat i on. B eca us e the s t at e courtaddr es s ed th is iss u e o n th e m e rits, C o lb e rt c a n o n lyp re v a il i f its ru lin g d e n y in g h is i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m w as “contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he S u p re m e C o u rt o f

th e U n ited S tate s,” o r w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le d eterm ination o f th e fac ts i n li g h t of the e v iden ce p rese n ted in the S tat e c o u rt p ro c e e d in g . 2 8 U .S .C . 2 2 5 4 (d )( 1 ), ( 2 ). I n or dert o pr evai l on an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , the defe ndantm us ts how thatcouns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci entand thats uch defi ci entper form ance pr ej udi ced the defendant . St r i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) . W i th r es pectt o the pr ej udi ce pr ong of the ana l y s i s , the d efen d an t m u st sho w that “the re is a rea so n ab le pro b ab il ity , b u t fo r co u n sel’s e rro rs, h e w o u ld n o t h a v e p lea d e d g u iltya n d w o u ld h a v e in sis ted o n g o in g to tr ia l.” H ill v . L o c k h a rt , 4 7 4 U .S . 5 2 , 5 8 -5 9 (1 9 8 5 ). T he O C C A ’ s hol di ng thatC ol bertdi d notr ece i ve i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w as notcontr aryt o, and di d noti nvol ve the unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, clea rl yestab li sh ed F ed era l l aw as d eterm ined b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt . C o lbert’s c o n c lu so rya n d v a g u e a lleg a tio n s re g a rd in g h is tria l co u n se l’s p ro fe ss io n a lly u n re a so n a b le c o n d u c t d u rin g th e p lea p ro c e ss a re in su fficie n t to sh o w th a t h is couns el ’ s per form ance w as cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci ent . A ddi t i onal l y , C ol berthas- 5 -

pr es ent ed no evi dence thatw oul d demonstr at e ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tyhe w o u ld n o t h a v e e n ter e d in to th e g u iltyp lea b u t fo r th e a lleg e d e rro rs o f h is c o u n s e l. A s s u c h th e re is n o p reju d ic e . C ol bert ’ s t hr ee r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on appea l ar e that( 1) the pr os ecut or comm i t t ed mi s conductdur i ng t he s ent enci ng pr oces s , ( 2) he i s fac tual l yi nnocent o f th e c h a rg e s to w h ich h e p lea d e d g u ilty , an d (3 ) th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to c o n d u c t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a d u ri n g th e re q u ir e d 3 0 -d a yp e ri o d . W e do notneed t o r eac h the mer i t s of thes e cl ai m s beca us e theyar e pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed. U nder28 U . S. C . § 2254( b) ( 1) , habea s corpus r el i ef maynotbe gr ant ed unl es s the appl i canthas exhaus t ed the r emedi es avai l abl e i n the s t at e court s . I f a pet i t i onerhas fai l ed t o “exha us ts t at e r emedi es and the courtt o w hi ch the pet i t i onerw oul d be r equi r ed t o pr es enthi s cl ai m s i n or dert o m eett he exha us t i on req u ir em en t w o u ld n o w fin d the c lai m s p roc ed u rall yb arred the c lai m s are c o n s id e re d e x h a u s te d a n d p ro c e d u ra lly d e fa u lte d fo r p u rp o s e s o f h a b e a s re lie f.” T hom as v. G i bs on, 218 F. 3d 1213, 1221 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . C ol bertneverr ai s ed thes e cl ai m s i n hi s pet i t i ons forpos t - convi ct i on, and thus thes e cl ai m s w oul d be pr ocedur al l ybarr ed i n O kl ahoma cour t s . See S m ith v . S tate , 5 4 6 P .2 d 1 3 5 1 , 1 3 5 4 (O k la. C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t all i ssues kno w n to a pet i t i on er m ustbe rai sed i n the fi rs tapp l i cat i on for po st c o n v ic tio n re lie f

in th e tr ia l c o u rt o r t h e yw ill b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n w a iv e d ).- 6 -

A ddi t i onal l y , C ol berthas notpr es ent ed anyevi dence thatourfai l ur e t o r evi ew thes e cl ai m s w i l l r es ul ti n a funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. See B al l i ngerv. K erb y , 3 F . 3 d 1 3 7 1 , 1 3 7 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (ho lding that in ce rt ain “ ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s ” i tw oul d be a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce t o fai l t o r evi ew an ac tual in n o c e n c e c la im b e c a u s e th e p e titio n e r’ s c la im is p ro c e d u ra lly d e fa u lte d ). A ccordi ng l y , C olber t ’s app l i cat i on for a C O A i s D E N I E D , and hi s appea l i s DI S M I S S ED . T he m oti on t o p roceed in form a pau peri s i s GR ANTED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge