J us t i n J ones r epl ace d R on W ar d as D i r ect orof the O kl ahoma D epart m entof * C o rrecti o n s o n O ctob er 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 . M r. Jo n es is there fo re su b sti tuted fo r M r. W ard a s a re s p o n d e n t in th is a c tio n . See F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 3 (c)(2). A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is 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 c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

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

### A u gu s t17,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT J E S I L AB RA HAM W I L S ON,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t,

v. STA TE O F O K LA H O M A ; TU LSA CO U N TY ; J U STI N J O N ES, *

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 5115 ( D. C. No . 0 2 - DV- 0 3 2 3 - CVE- P J C)

(N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pet i t i onerJ es i l A br aham W i l s on appea l s fr om a di s tr i ctcourtor derdeny i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . W i l s on’ s pr i m arycl ai m i s t hathi s t r i alA t su c c e ss iv e sta g e s o f h is p ro se c u tio n , W ilso n h a d d iffe re n t co u n se l, t o 1 w h o m w e re fe r a s c e rtific a tio n c o u n se l, tria l co u n se l, an d a p p e llate c o u n se l. -2- couns el w as cons t i tut i onal l yi neffect i ve i n connec t i on w i th hi s pr e- tr i al cert i fi cat i on fortr i al as an adul ton m ur derchar ges ar i s i ng outof a s hoot i ng that o c c u rre d w h e n h e w a s th irtee n y e a rs o ld . T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t th is c laim w as pr ocedur al l ybarr ed. W e gr ant ed a c er t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyon thatrul i ng, s ee 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) , and appoi nt ed the Feder al Publ i c D efe ndert o r epr es ent p e titio n e r o n a p p e a l. O n d e n o v o re v ie w , s ee A nders on v. A t t ’ y G en. , 342 F. 3d 11 40 , 11 43 (10t h C i r. 20 03 ), w e revers e and rem and for further proceedings. W i l s on’ s couns el di d notr ai s e i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of ce r t i fi cat i on 1 couns el on di r ectappea l i n t he O kl ahoma cour t s fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on. B uton p o st- co n v ict ion rev iew in the O k laho m a C o u rto f C ri m inal A p p ea ls ( O C C A ), W ilso n a lleg e d c e rtific a tio n c o u n se l h a d b e e n in e ffe c tiv e in fa ili n g to : in v e stig a te and pr epar e forthe ce r t i fi cat i on hear i ng, cal l w i tnes s es , pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence , chal l enge s t at ement s m ade dur i ng pet i t i oner ’ s cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on, a n d ra is e c o m p e te n c yis s u e s . See R . doc. 1, exs . 1 & 3. C i t i ng the omi s s i on of th is c laim o n d ire c t ap p e a l, th e sta te c o u rt h e ld th a t ith a d b e e n p ro c e d u ra lly d e fa u lted . W ilso n ’s p o st-c o n v ictio n a p p lica tio n a lso a ss e rte d th a t ap p e llate couns el had bee n i neffect i ve forthi s veryom i s s i on— a cl ai m t hat , i f s ubs t ant i at ed, w o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d c a u se to e x c u se th e p ro c e d u ra l d e fa u lt— b u t th is a p p e llate-3-

i neffect i venes s cl ai m w as deni ed on the mer i t s . H e then fi l ed the i ns t anthabea s p e titio n . B efor e addr es s i ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s pos i t i on, w e s t ar tw i th a fun dam ental defici encyi n the O C C A ’s analy si s of t he ap pell at e i neffect i ven ess c laim . T h a t an a ly sis c o n sis ted o f n o th in g m o re th a n a c o n c lu sio n im m e d iate ly fol l ow i ng thi s l egal pr emi s e: “The fac tappel l at e couns el fai l s t o r ecogni ze or rai se a cl ai m , regar dles s of m eri t , i s not and can no tal on e be suffi ci ent t o est abli sh i neffect i ve as s i s t ance ort o pr ecl ude enfor cementof a pr ocedur al defa ul t . ” R . doc. 4, ex. G , at2. I n C a rg le v . Mu lli n , 3 1 7 F . 3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 2 -05 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), h o w e v e r, w e e x p lain e d a t len g th th a t (1 ) th e m e rit o f th e o m itt e d c laim is th e fo c u s o f

th e a p p e llate in e ffe c tiv e n e ss in q u iry , (2 ) o m iss io n o f a su fficie n tly m er i t or i ous cl ai m can, i n i t s el f, es t abl i s h i neffect i ve as s i s t ance , and, thus , ( 3) t he s t at e court ’ s r ej ect i on of an a ppel l at e i neffect i venes s cl ai m on the bas i s of the le g a l p re m is e in v o k e d h e re is w ro n g a s a m a tte r o f fe d e ra l c o n s titu tio n a l la w . See als o Ma lico a t v. Mu lli n , 426 F. 3d 1241, 1248 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( fol l ow i ng C a rg le ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 3 5 6 (20 0 6 ). W e e m p h asize that “[ b ]ec au se th e O C C A ’s anal y s i s of pet i t i oner ’ s i neffect i venes s al l egat i ons devi at ed fr om the contr ol l i ng fe d e ra l s ta n d a rd , it is n o t e n title d to d e fe re n c e ” o n h a b e a s re v ie w . C a rg le , 3 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 5 ; see also Mal i coat , 426 F. 3d at1248. I n i t s habea s r evi ew , t he di s tr i ctcour ti gnor ed the s t at e court ’ s err oneous di s pos i t i on of the appe l l at e i neffect i venes s cl ai m . I ns t ead, i tcons truct ed aMooney w as deci ded undert he 1991 s t at e code , w hi l e pet i t i oner ’ s cas e w as 2 governed bythe 1997 ver s i on, butt he s ubs t ance of the oper at i ve s t atut es w as not c h a n g e d (d e s p ite s o m e re n u m b e ri n g ). See Ok l a . S t a t . An n . t i t . 1 0 , § 7 3 0 3 - 6 . 2 ( A) (1 9 9 7 ); see also O kl a. St at . A nn. t i t . 22, C h. 18, A pp. ( R ul es of the C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ) , R ul es 2. 5( A ) , 7. 1( 1) , 7. 2. -4- d iffe ren t r ati o n ale fo r w h ythe fail u re to a p p ea l certi fica ti o n co u n sel’s p e rfo rm a n c e d id n o t re flec t in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e b yp e tit io n e r’s a p p e llate couns el

— though, w e not e, al s o w i thoutevercons i der i ng the mer i t s of the omi t t ed c laim . C iti n g sta te la w th a t re q u ire s th e d e fe n d a n t to tak e a n im m e d iate i nter l ocu t oryapp eal from an ad ultcert i fi cat i on order and thatthe fa i l ure t o d o so w a iv e s th e m a tte r, s ee Mo o n ey v . S ta te , 990 P. 2d 875, 884 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1999) , the di s tr i ctcourthel d t hatW i l s on’ s appel l at e couns el coul d notbe found

2 i neffect i ve fornotpur s ui ng a mat t ert hatw as i n fac tw ai ved att he t i m e di r ect appea l w as t aken. W hi l e perhaps per s uas i ve atfi r s tbl us h, on cl os erexami nat i on thi s anal y s i s cannotbe s us t ai ned. T h e a n a ly sis tac itl yre sts o n a n u n d u lyc o n stric ted n o tio n o f a p p e llate i neffect i venes s , w i th t he r es ul tthatone omi s s i on bycouns el i s excus ed on the b a sis o f y e t an o th e r. T h e v e ryc irc u m sta n c e re lied o n to n e g a te th e a p p e llate in e ffe c tiv e n e ss c laim , i. e ., th e fa ilu re to tim e lyp e rfe c t an in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l, coul d i t s el f apt l yfal l w i thi n t he hea di ng of appe l l at e i neffect i venes s for pr ocedur al barpurpos es even i f the fa ul tl i es w i th cert i fi cat i on couns el ( orany otherat t orneyr epr es ent i ng pet i t i onerdur i ng hi s t r i al pr ocee di ngs ) r athert han the a tto rn e yw h o p u rs u e d a n a p p e a l fo llo w in g fin a l ju d g m e n t. See J ones v. C ow l ey ,W e not e ther e w as al s o a pr ocedur al cour s e ava i l abl e t o appel l at e couns el 3 t o s eek di r ectr evi ew of the ce r t i fi cat i on or der( w i thoutpr ocee di ng byw ayof an i nt erm edi at e cha l l enge t o cert i fi cat i on couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o t ake a t i m el yappea l of the o rde r) no tw ith stan d ing the w aive r-of-ap p ea l pro b lem . T h e R u les o f th e C o u rt of C r i m i nal A ppeal s pr ovi de foran “appeal outof t i m e, ” O kl a. St at . A nn. t i t . 22, C h. 18, A pp. , R ul e 2. 1( E ) , w hi ch ca n be pur s ued i n as s oci at i on w i th a di r ect a p p e a l f ro m th e fin a l ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n . See O r ange v. C al bone , 318 F. 3d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 7 0 -7 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (s u m m a riz in g p ro c e d u re a n d a lso n o tin g it i s “cons i der ed partof the di r ectappea l pr oces s underO kl ahoma l aw ”) . W hi l e our r evi ew of the ca s e l aw i n O r ange “s ugges t [ed] t hatan appl i cat i on fora di r ect appea l outof t i m e i s r ar el ygr ant ed, ” i d. a t 1 1 7 1 , the S tate h a s p o in ted o u t in its ow n br i efi ng her e thatthe pr ocedur e has been us ed t o perm i tbel at ed r evi ew of an o rd e r c e rt if

y in g a c h ild fo r t ri a l a s a n a d u lt, s ee C .D .H. v. S ta te , 760 P. 2d 843, 8 4 4 (O k la. C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ). T h e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t p e tit io n e r’s a p p e llate c o u n s e l m a d e a n ya tte m p t to in v o k e th is a v a ila b le p ro c e d u re . -5- 2 8 F .3 d 1 0 6 7 , 1 0 7 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (re c o g n izin g trial c o u n se l’s fa ilu re to file not i ce of

appea l m ay“cons t i tut e[] a vi ol at i on of [de fenda nt ’ s ] r i ghtt o effect i ve cou nsel on app eal ” excu si ng proced ural bar) . A l t ernat i vely , view ed as a tr i al - l evel om i s s i on, cert i fi cat i on couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o per fec tan appe al fr om the cert i fi cat i on or derw as i n anyeventa s epar at e i ns t ance of al l egedl ydefi ci ent r epr es ent at i on, di s t i nctfr om the ce r t i fi cat i on pr oces s i t s el f thatw oul d have be en the s ubj ectof the i nt er l ocut oryappea l couns el fai l ed t o t ake. T hus , i tw oul d have been ope n t o chal l enge fol l ow i ng fi nal j udgm ent , i n the s ame m anneras anyot her in sta n c e o f

trial c o u n se l in e ffe c tiv e n e ss , w ith o u t co m p lica tio n s re latin g to Mooney .

3 I n s um , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s t hr es hol d r ej ect i on of W i l s on’ s al l egat i ons of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el , and i t s cons equentdi s pos i t i on of the p e t i t i o n o n th e b a s i s o f p r o c e d u r a l b a r , c a n n o ts t a n d o n i t s s t a t e d r a t i o n a l e . ToIn th is re g a rd , C a rg le e x p lain e d : “I f th e o m itt e d iss u e is s o p lain ly 4 m er i t or i ous thati tw oul d have be en unr eas onabl e t o w i nnow i touteven f r om an otherw i s e s tr ong appea l , i t s om i s s i on m aydi r ect l yes t abl i s h defi ci ent per form ance ; i f the omi t t ed i s s ue has m er i tbuti s nots o compel l i ng, t he ca s e for (c o n tin u e d ...) -6- hol d otherw i s e w oul d be t o embra ce the not i on thatone ac tof i neffect i ve as s i s t ance i s canc el l ed out

— w hen i ti s i n fac tcompounded— bya s econd a ctthat for fei t s di r ectr evi ew of the fi r s t , s o thatcouns el i neffect i venes s thatpr ej udi ces the defendantbot h atthe tr i al l evel and ( thr ough w ai ver ) on appea l i s not re m e d ia b le . W e ther efor e r ever s e and r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs . W e emphas i ze thaton r emand t he di s tr i ctcourtneed notpr ocee d di r ect l yt o W i l s on’ s chal l enge t o cert i fi cat i on couns el ’ s per form ance . G i ven the narr ow gr ound of i t s pr i or d e c isio n a n d o u r re v e rsa l th e re o f h e re , o n re m a n d th e c o u rt m a yw e ll b e g in w ith ad d it ion al co n side rati o n o f th e S tat e’s p roc ed u ral ba r de fe n se a n d W il so n ’s as s oci at ed cl ai m of appe l l at e i neffect i venes s , nei therof w hi ch has thus farbeen concl us i vel yes t abl i s hed ornegat ed. Forexampl e, the pert i nentpr ocedur al ci r cumst ance s fl es hed outi n det ai l her e mayal t erthe court ’ s vi ew r egar di ng the avail abil i tyof the proced ural bar defen se. If the co urtreaffi rm s that the d efen se i s avai l abl e, i tw oul d s t i l l have t o det erm i ne, de novo, w hetherthe bas i s for i nvoki ng t he barher e, i . e. , the abs ence of anyappel l at e cha l l enge t o cert i fi cat i on couns el ’ s per form ance , w as i t s el f a f unct i on of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ex cu sing the b ar. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 defi ci entper form ance i s m or e compl i cat ed, r equi r i ng an as s es s m entof the i s s ue re lativ e to th e re st o f

th e a p p e a l, an d d e fe re n tial c o n sid e ra tio n m u st b e g iv e n to a n yp ro fe ss io n a l ju d g m e n t in v o lv e d in its o m iss io n [ a ss u m in g it w a s n o t sim p ly a n o v e rsig h t]; o f

c o u rse , if th e iss u e is m e ritles s, its o m iss io n w ill n o t co n stitu te defi ci entper form ance . ” 317 F. 3d at1202. A gai n, the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s r evi ew of th e m a tte r w ill b e d e n o v o in lig h t o f th e O C C A ’s u s e o f

a n a b e rr a n t s ta n d a rd . See i d. at1205. -7- W i l s on has r eques t ed thati n the eve ntof a r emand w e di r ectthe di s tr i ct c o u rt to h o ld a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n th e a d e q u a c yo f h is le g a l re p re se n tatio n in the c erti fica ti o n p roc ess. T h at w o u ld b e p rem ature . W h il e c erti fica ti o n co u n sel’s p erfo rm an ce w o u ld b e su bject t o d e n o v o h ab ea s rev iew sh o u ld the S tat e’s e ffo rt t o sup po rtproced ural bar fai l or W i l son’s cl ai m of ap pell at e i neffect i ven ess e x c u se th e b a r (a n d , ind e e d , as n o ted a b o v e , the m e rit o f W ilso n ’s o bjec tio n s to cert i fi cat i on couns el ’ s per form ance coul d be the di s pos i t i ve fa ct ori n r es ol vi ng w h ethe r ap p ell ate c o u n sel w as in effe cti v e), w e c an n o t sayat th is po int th at th ere ar e no pos s i bl e means of r es ol vi ng the pet i t i on w i thoutan evi dent i aryhear i ng on the i s s ue. N ordo w e cons i deri tappr opr i at e t o deci de now , i n the fi r s ti ns t ance , w h ethe r th e re q u ir em en ts i n 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (e)(2) fo r ob tai n ing an ev iden ti ary hear i ng— orthe gr ounds forexcus i ng thos e r equi r ement s expl ai ned i n Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 2 0 , 4 3 0 -3 2 (2 0 0 0 )— a re o r c o u ld b e s a tis fie d h e re . W il so n h as a lso fil ed m o ti o n s see k ing to o b tai n the c o m p let e state c o u rt r ecor d of hi s cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs and t o i ncl ude i tas a s uppl ementt o ourr ecor d. G iv e n o u r d isp o sitio n o f th is a p p e a l, th e m o tio n s a re d e n ied a s m o o t. W ilso n is-8-

of cour s e fr ee t o as k the di s tr i ctcourtt o i ncl ude the s t at e courtr ecor d i n the p ro c e e d in g s o n re m a n d . T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is R E V E R S E D a n d th e c a se is R E M A N D E D fo r fu rth er p roc ee d ing s. W il so n ’s m o ti o n s to o b tai n h is st ate c o u rt rec o rd a n d to inc lud e itas a su p p lem en t t o the a p p ell ate rec o rd h ere in are D E N IE D a s m o o t. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge