W e li b era ll yco n stru e S teph en s’ pr o s e p le a d in g s . Se e G re e n v . D o rr e ll , 1 9 6 9 F . 2 d 9 1 5 , 9 1 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). B ecaus e St ephens di d notexpr es s l yr eques ta C O A , w e dee m hi s not i ce of 2 ap p e a l a re q u e s t fo r a C O A . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 22( b) ( 2) . W e di r ect ed the part i es t o fi l e br i efs addr es s i ng w hetherSt ephens ’ not i ce of appea l w as t i m el yas itw as fil e-stam p ed o n e d ayaf ter th e a p p ea l dea d li n e. A fter b ri efing , w e a re s a tis fie d th e n o tic e o f ap p e a l w a s tim e ly u n d e r th e p ri s o n m a ilb o x ru le . See Pri ce FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Oc to be r 22,200 8 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT RO BE RT M A RK STEPH EN S ,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t , v. D A V I D M I L L E R , W ar den,

R es pondent- A ppel l ee . N o. 08- 5034 (N . D . O k la. ) (D . C . N o. 04 -C V -0090 0-H D C -SA J )

ORDE R DE NYI NG CE RT I F I CAT E OF AP P EA LA BI LI TY ,

AND DI S M I S S I NG AP P EA L B efor e O’ BR I EN , M c KAY , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es.

R obertM ark St ephens , a s t at e i nm at e appe ar i ng pro se and i n f o rma p a up e ris ( ifp ) , s eeks a ce rt i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty( C O A ) t o appea l fr om the 1 d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s h ab e a s c o rp u s p e t i t i o n fi l e dp u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2254. B ecaus e he ha s not“made a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a

2v. P hi l

pot , 420 F. 3d 1158, 1163- 64 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( underthe pr i s on m ai l box ru le, “ a p ro se p riso n e r’s n o tice o f ap p e a l w illb e c o n sid e re dtim e lyif g iv e n to pr i s on offi ci al s form ai l i ng pr i ort o the fi l i ng deadl i ne, r egar dl es s of w hen the c o u rt itse lf

re c e iv e s th e d o c u m e n ts” ); see also Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( c) ( 1) ( i ncorpor at i ng the pr i s on m ai l box rul e foran i nm at e’ s “not i ce of appea l i n ei ther a c ivil o r a c ri m inal ca se” ). -2- c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t,” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ), w e d e n ya C O A . I . Backg r ound St ephens , w ear i ng a hatw i th hai rs ew n i nt o i t , appr oache d V ernon C ol eman in a p a rk in g lo t w ith a lo a d e d fire a rm a s C o lem a n w a s re triev in g item s f ro m h is v e h icle . A f

tertak in g C o lem a n ' s k e y s a n dw a llet, S tep h e n s o rd e re dC o lem a n to o p e n th e v e h ic le ’s tru n ka n d g e t in s id e . C o le m a n o p e n e dth e tru n ka n dra n . St ephens goti nt o C ol eman’ s vehi cl e and dr ove appr oxi m at el yone bl ock dow n the r oad t o a gas s t at i on. C ol eman’ s nei ghbor s cal l ed the pol i ce. U s i ng a s urvei l l ance hel i copt er , the pol i ce l ocat ed St ephens i n C ol eman’ s vehi cl e atthe gas s t at i on. T w o offi cer s appr ehende d St ephens , fi ndi ng C ol eman’ s w al l etand a l oaded . 38 cal i berr evol veri n hi s pocket s . T heyal s o r ecove r ed a ha tw i th fake hai rs ew n i nt o i t( w hi ch one of the off i cer s s aw St ephens r emove fr om hi s head and thr ow t o the gr ound) nearC ol eman’ s vehi cl e. S teph en s w as c h arg ed in O k laho m a state c o u rtw ith firstd eg ree rob b ery ( C ountI ) and att empt ed ki dnappi ng ( C ountI I ) . T he j uryfound St ephens gui l tyof b o th c o u n ts a n d re c o m m e n d e d p u n ish m e n t o f 1 5 y e a rs im p riso n m e n t o n C o u n t I-3-

and 1 y eari m pr i s onm enton C ountI I . T he courti m pos ed the s ent ence s r ecomm ended bythe j ury , di r ect i ng theyrun cons ecut i vel y . St ephens ’ s ubs equent pr o s e mot i on fornew tr i al w as deni ed. On d i r e c tap p e a l , th e Ok l a h o maCo u rto f Cr i mi n a l Ap p e a l s ( OC CA ) m o d ifie d S te p h e n s ’ s e n te n c e s to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly b u t o th e rw is e d e n ie dre lie f. S tep h e n s filed a p e tit io n a n d a m e n d e dp e tit io n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief; b o th w e re d e n ie d . T h e O C C A d e n ie d h is s u b s e q u e n t ap p e a l. St ephens fi l ed a § 2254 pe t i t i on w i th the di s tr i ctcourtcl ai m i ng: ( 1) the d en ial o f d u e p roc ess b ase d o n h is ab sen ce fro m a h ea ri n g at w h ich th e c o u rt det erm i ned he ha d r egai ned compet ency ; ( 2) i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el a n d (3 ) in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f ap p e llate c o u n se l b a se du p o n c o u n se l’s fa ilu re to r ai s e on di r ectappea l the deni al of due pr oces s and the i neffect i venes s of tr i al couns el cl ai m s . T he St at e r es ponded, ar gui ng St ephens ’ cl ai m s w er e ei ther( 1) n o t en tit led to h ab e a s re v iew b e c a u se th e yw e re d e ter m in e db yth e sta te c o u rt to be pr ocedur al l ybarr ed on i ndepende ntand ade quat e s t at e gr ounds or( 2) w i thout m er i tbecaus e the s t at e court ’ s adj udi cat i on of them w as nei thercontr aryt o noran unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw . I n a det ai l ed thirty -page o rder , the d i stri ctcou rtagreed w i th the Stat e and den i ed S t eph ens’ p e tit io n . It su b se q u e n tlyd e n ied S tep h e n s’ r e q u e st fo r a C O A b u t g ra n ted h im l eave t o pr ocee d ifp o n ap p e a l.-4- I I . D i s cus s i on A C O A is a ju risd ictio n a l p re re q u isite to o u r re v iew o f a p e tit io n fo r a w rit o f h ab e a s c o rp u s . Mille r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . W e w i l l i s s ue a C O A “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade as ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a cons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . T o m ake s uch a s how i ng, an appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e “thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , for thatm att er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r ent 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 d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to pr ocee d further . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i tt ed) . “W hen the di s tr i ctcourtdeni es a habe as pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds w ith o u t re a c h in g th e p riso n e r’s u n d e rly in g c o n stitu tio n a l cla im , a C O A sh o u ld iss u e w h e n th e p riso n e r sh o w s, a t lea st, th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ldfin dit debat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal ri g h t and that juri sts of rea so n w o u ld find itd eb atab le w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt w as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Id . “W h e re a p lain p ro c e d u ra l b a r is p re s e n t a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rtis c o rr e c t to in v o k e it to d is p o s e o f th e c a s e , a re a so n ab le ju rist c o u ldn o t co n c lu d e e ith e r th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre din di s m i s s i ng the pet i t i on orthatthe pet i t i oners houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ocee d further . ” Id . W e have thor oughl yr evi ew ed the ent i r e r ecor d, i ncl udi ng the thr ee volum es-5-

of tr i al tr ans cr i pt s , St ephens ’ num er ous s t at e courtpl eadi ngs , the s t at e tr i al cou rt s’ decis i on s and the dis tri ctcou rt ’s painst aking an al y si s of each of S t eph ens’ c l a i m s . We h a v e a l s o r e v i e w e d S t e p h e n s ’ o p e n i n g a n ds u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e fs . We a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t S tep h e n s is n o t en tit led to h ab e a s re lief a s h is claim s are eith er p roc ed u rall yb arred o r he fa il ed to sh o w the O C C A ’s adj udi cat i on of them “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 all aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C ourtof the U ni t ed St at es ” or“r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n the St at e courtpr ocee di ng. ” 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). T w o c la im s , h o w e v e r, w a rr a n t f u rth e r d is c u s s io n . F i rs t , S t eph ens con t end s he i s actuall yi nn ocen t . T o sup po rtthis cl ai m , he refers to th e s ta te m e n t o f

a n e y e w itn e s s ta k e n b yth e p o lic e o n th e d a yo f th e in c id e n t. W hi l e “acol or abl e cl ai m of fa ctual i nnocenc e” e xcus es a pet i t i oner ’ s pr ocedur al d efau ltall o w ing co n side rati o n o f h is de fa u lt ed claim s, the s tat em en t fail s to c arry th e d a y . See D em ar es tv. P r i ce , 130 F. 3d 922, 941- 42 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i tt ed) . Factual i nnocenc e means i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have found pet i t i onergui l tybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . Factual i nnocenc e requi res a stronger show i ng than that necessaryt o est abli sh pr ej udi ce. T he habe as courtm us tm ake i t s det erm i nat i on conce rni ng the pet i t i oner ’ s i nnocenc e i n l i ghtof al l the evi dence , i ncl udi ng that al l eged t o have be en i l l egal l yadmi tt ed ( butw i th due r egar d t o any unr el i abi l i tyof i t ) and evi dence t enabl ycl ai m ed t o have be en w ro n g lye x c lu d e d o r to h a v e b e c o m e a v a ilab le o n lya f terth e trial.A t th e h o sp ital, S tep h e n s w a s p re sc rib e dZ yp re x a , C e leb re x , F lex e ril, 3 T o p a m a x , C o la c e a n d A n u s o l S u p p o s ito ri e s ; th e ja il p re s c ri b e dZ yp re x a , C o la c e , -6- Id . at94 2 (ci t at i on s and q uo t at i on s om i tt ed). In hi s st at em ent, the ey ew i tness a lleg e s h e h e a rd C o lem a n y e ll “[ h ]e ’s s tea lin g m yc a r,” s a w S tep h e n s s tar t to d ri v e o ff

in C o lem an ’s ve h icl e a n dthen ran af ter th e v eh icl e. (R . A p p ell an t’ s A pp. of Exhi bi t s atE x. 4. ) T he w i tnes s s t at ed he obs erved St ephens l eave C o lem a n ’s v e h icle in th e p a rk in g lo t an dflee in a n o th e r v e h icle . C o n tra ryto S tep h e n s’ c laim , this sta tem e n t is n o t ex c u lp a to ry . It m e re lyc o n tra d icts test im o n yb ystat e w itn esse s tha t Step h en s fled the p ark ing lot i n C o lem an ’s vehi cl e and w as l at erappr ehende d ata gas s t at i on. I tdoes not , as St ephens a lleg e d in th e d istric t co u rt, sh o w h e d idn o t tak e C o lem a n ’s v e h icle a t g u n p o in t. Second, St ephens cl ai m s he pr ocee ded t o tr i al w i thouthi s compet ency m ed icati o n s. Init ial ly , S teph en s w as d ec lared inco m p eten t and sen t t o E astern S tate H o sp ital. W h ile th e re , S tep h e n s w a s p re sc rib e dse v e ra l m e d ica tio n s. S ix m onths aft erhi s admi tt ance , a hos pi t al doct orr eport ed t o the courtthatSt ephens had r egai ned compet ence . I n the hos pi t al di s char ge r eport , the doct ors t at ed S tep h e n s w a s to c o n tin u e tak in g h is p re sc rib e dm e d ica tio n s. T h e re c o rd re v e a ls th a t o n c e re tu rn e d to jail, th e jail c e a se dp ro v id in g S tep h e n s s e v e ra l o f h is m e d ica tio n s. C o n tra ryto S tep h e n s’ c laim , h e c o n tin u e dto re c e iv e h is a n tip sy c h o tic m e d ica tio n . S tep h e n s’ c laim th a t h e p ro c e e d e dto trial w ith o u t h is 3M e t a mu c i l a n d M o tr i n . Un d e rRu l e 2 0 1 o f th e F e d e r a l Ru l e s o f

E v i d e n c e , we t ake j udi ci al not i ce thatZ ypr exa he l ps m anage s ym pt om s of s chi zophr eni a, the m a n ic p h a se o f

b ip o lard iso rd e r a n do th e r p sy c h o tic d iso rd e rs; C e leb re x tre a ts a c u te p a in a n d a rth ritis; F lex e ril is a m u sc le r e lax a n t p re sc rib e dto re liev e m u sc le s pas m s ; T opamax i s an ant i - epi l ept i c drug al s o us ed t o tr eatm i gr ai nes ; A nus ol tre a ts h e m o rrh o id s; C o lac e a n d M e tam u c il tre a t co n stip a tio n ; an dM o trin tre a ts fe v e r a n d p a in in c lu d in g p a in c a u s e db ya rth ri tis a n dm ig ra in e s . See h ttp ://w w w .p d rh e a lth .c o m /h o m e /h o m e .a s p x . -7- c o m p e te n c ym e d ic a tio n is n o t s u p p o rt e db yth e re c o rd . W e DE NY a COA and D I SM I SS th is n a s c e n t ap p e a l.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge