T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, * re s ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 9, 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 SY LV ESTE R D A V I S, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 06- 1080 BREN T CRO USE; ATTO RN EY GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF C O L O R A D O , R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV - 1 7 5 2 - WYD) ( D . C ol or ado)

OR DER * B efor e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. Sy l ves t erD avi s , a C ol or ado s t at e pr i s onerappea r i ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a l a b i l i ty( COA) i n o r d e rt o c h a l l e n g e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s 2 8 U. S . C. § 2254 pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus . B eca us e D avi s has fai l ed t o m ake “ a s u b s t a n t i a l s h o wi n g o f

th e d e n i a l o f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t , ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) , we d en yh is r eq u est an d d ism iss th e m att er. I. I n 1997, D avi s w as char ged i n C ol or ado s t at e courtw i th, and ul t i m at el yconvi ct ed-2-

ata s i ngl e j urytr i al of, comm i t t i ng fi ve arm ed r obber i es of D enverar ea c onveni ence s t or es betw een M ay10 and M ay23, 1997. A s a r es ul tof hi s convi ct i ons , D avi s w as s e n te n c e d o n F e b ru a ry 2 7 , 1 9 9 8 , to a n a g g re g a te s e n te n c e o f 3 0 y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. D avi s ’ convi ct i ons w er e af fi r m ed on di r ectappea l . See Peopl e v. D avi s , N o. 98C A 0904 ( C ol o. A pp. A pr . 20, 2000) ( nots el ect ed forpubl i cat i on) . D avi s ’ pet i t i on forw r i tof cert i or ar i w as deni ed bythe C ol or ado Supr eme C our tand a mandat e w as i s s ued on J une 22, 2000. A ft eruns ucce s s ful l ym ovi ng fora new tr i al , D avi s fi l ed a pr o s e appl i cat i on for s t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef a s s ert i ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and al s o r eques t i ng a n ew tr ial o n the b asis o f n ew lyd isco v ere d ev iden ce . A fter co n d u cti n g an ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g , d u ri n g w h ich D av is w as a ll o w ed to p rese n t t esti m o n yfro m tw o p o li ce o ff icers and hi s form ertr i al couns el , the s t at e tr i al courtdeni ed the appl i cat i on. T he C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s aff

i r m ed the deni al of pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef on J anuary29, 2004. See Peopl e v. D avi s , N o. 02C A 1170 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. J an. 29, 2004) ( nots el ect ed for p u b lic a tio n ). T h e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d c e rt io ra ri re v ie w o n J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 . Da v i s f i l e d h i s f e d e r a l h a b e a s p e t i t i o n o n Au g u s t2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , a s s e r t i n g th r e e c l a i ms f o r re lief: (1 ) th a t h is tria l co u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r (a ) f a ili n g to sh o w D a v is p rio r to tr i al a s ur vei l l ance vi deot ape that , i n D avi s ’ vi ew , demonstr at ed thata pr os ecut i on ey ew i tnes s comm i t t ed per j ury , and ( b) fai l i ng t o i ntr oduce a ttr i al a l ett erfr om a per s on w h o c o n f

e ss e d to th e c rim e ; (2 ) th a t h e w a s e n tit led to a n e w trial o n th e b a sis o f n e w ly di s cover ed evi dence ; and ( 3) thatthe cons ecut i ve s ent ence s i m pos ed bythe s t at e tr i al-3-

courtforhi s fi ve convi ct i ons w er e contr aryt o C ol or ado l aw and thus i l l egal . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt d e n ied D a v is’ p e tit io n a n d su b se q u e n tlyre jec ted D a v is’ re q u e st f

o r a C O A . D a v is h a s n o w re n e w e d h is re q u e st w ith th is c o u rt. II. T he deni al of a pe t i t i on forfede r al habea s r el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254 m ay b e a p p e a le d o n ly if

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r t h is c o u rt f ir s t is s u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . “A cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tym ayi s s ue . . . onl yi f the appl i canthas m a d e a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I n or dert o m ake s uch a s how i ng, a pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e that “r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a d if f e 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 d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t 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 i thout r eac hi ng the pr i s oner ’ s under l y i ng cons t i tut i onal cl ai m , a C O A s houl d i s s ue w hen the pr i s oners how s , atl eas t , thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on sta tes a v a lid c laim o f

th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t an d th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” I d. I nef f ect i ve as s is tance of

couns el D a v is a rg u e s th a t h e re c e iv e d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

trial c o u n se l b e c a u se h is couns el ( a) fai l ed t o s how hi m pr i ort o tr i al a conve ni ence s t or e s ur vei l l ance vi deot ape r efut i ng the t es t i m onyof a pr os ecut i on ey ew i tnes s thats he w as i n a pos i t i on t o obs erve-4-

defe ndanti n the s t or e, and ( b) fai l ed t o i ntr oduce a ttr i al a l ett erw r i t t en byanotherper s on c o n f e s s i n g t o th e c r i me . Be c a u s e th e Co l o r a d o Co u r to f Ap p e a l s a d d r e s s e d th e s e c l a i ms on the mer i t s i n aff

i r m i ng the deni al of pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, D avi s can onl ypr evai l on tho se c lai m s in this fe d era l hab ea s p roc ee d ing if h e c an d em o n str ate tha t th e state c o u rt ’s rul i ng 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 bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , ” orw as bas ed on a n u n re a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted in th e S tate co u rtp roc ee d ing . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ), (2). C lai m s o f in ef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel are g o v ern ed b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt ’s d e c is io n in S tr ic k la n d v . W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 ). T o s u p p o rt s u c h a c la im , a defe ndantm us ts how thathi s att orney ’ s per form ance “‘ fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s ’ and thatthe unr eas onabl ydefi ci entper form ance r es ul t ed i n pr ej udi ce. ” L ucer o v. K erby , 133 F. 3d 1299, 1323 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng St r i ckl and, 466 U . S. at 6 8 8 , 6 9 1 -92 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatthe C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s , i n r ej ect i ng D av is’ inef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce claim , rea so n ab lyap p li ed the S tr icklan d stan d ard s. M o re s peci fi cal l y , the di s tr i ctcourtagr eed w i th the C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s thatD avi s had

“ f a il[e d ] to d e m o n stra te a n yre a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e o u tco m e o f [ h is] tria l w o u ld have be en di ffe r entbutfor[hi s ] couns el ’ s conduct . ” R O A , D oc. 25 at11. A f ter e x a m in in g th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l, w e c o n c lu d e th a t D a v is h a s f a iled to d e m o n s tr a te th a t r e a s o n a b le ju ri s ts c o u ld d is a g re e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n .-5-

W ith re sp e c t to th e iss u e o f th e su rv e ill a n c e v id e o tap e , the C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o u n d , a s a m a tte r o f

h is to ri c a l f

a c t, th a t it w a s v ie w e d b yth e ju ry a t D a v is ’ t ri a l. N o tab ly , D a v is d o e s n o t d isp u te th is f in d in g . In tu rn , the C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls concl uded “thatthe ey ew i tnes s ’ s cr edi bi l i tyw as a ques t i on thatthe j urycons i der ed at trial a n d re so lv e d a g a in st d e f e n d a n t.” In o th e r w o rd s, th e C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls ef fe cti v elyco n clud ed that D av is co u ld n o t est ab li sh h e w as p rejud iced b yh is co u n sel’s purpor t ed fa i l ur e t o s how hi m the s ur vei l l ance vi deot ape pr i ort o tr i al . I n hi s appl i cat i on forC O A , D avi s offe r s no per s uas i ve ar gum entw hythi s rul i ng w as contr aryt o, oran unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, St r i ckl and. A s forthe i s s ue of the purpor t ed conf es s i on l et t er, the st at e t ri al cou rtfou nd , and the C olor ado C ou rtof A pp eal s agreed, that D avis ’ trial “ c o u n se l m a d e a tac tica l d e c isio n ” n o t to in tro d u c e th e lette r b e c a u se its a u th e n ticity w a s in q u e stio n a n d th e in tro d u c tio n o f th e lette r w o u ld h a v e a llo w e d th e p ro se c u tio n to admi tevi dence thatD avi s had thr eat ened the authorof the l ett eron the morni ng of the tri al . In l i gh tof thi s fi nd i ng , the C olor ado C ou rtof A pp eal s i n turn rej ect ed D avis ’ a ss e rtio n th a t h is c o u n se l ac ted u n re a so n a b lyb yf a ili n g to in tro d u c e th e lette r. In h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r C O A , D av is do es n o t seri o u slych all en g e e ith er the stat e tri al co u rt ’s fac tual fi ndi ng orthe C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s ’ l egal concl us i on. In su m , D av is ha s n o t dem o n str ated that “re aso n ab le j u ri sts co u ld d eb ate w h ethe r” h is in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im s “ s h o u ld h a v e b e e n re s o lv e d in a d if f e re n t m a n n e r o r . . . w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack, 529 U . S. at484.-6- N ew l y dis cove r ed ev i dence D avi s bas es hi s cl ai m of “ne w l ydi s cover ed” e vi dence on the fa ctthat , atthe evi dent i aryhear i ng on hi s appl i cat i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, he w as al l ow ed, a lleg e d lyf

o r th e f irst tim e , to v iew th e su rv e ill a n c e v id e o tap e th a t f o rm e d th e b a sis f

o r h is i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . D avi s al l eges thatthe pr os ecut i on ey ew i tnes s w ho t es t i fi ed r egar di ng the r obberydepi ct ed i n the vi deot ape w as notobs ervabl e on the vi deot ape a nd th u s m u st h a v e tes tifie d f a lse ly . N o t su rp risin g ly , the C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, in aff i r m i ng the deni al of D avi s ’ appl i cat i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, concl uded that thi s di d notqual i fyas new evi dence . T he di s tr i ctcourti n thi s fede r al habea s act i on concl uded thatD avi s ’ cl ai m of new l ydi s cover ed evi dence fai l ed t o r i s e t o the l evel of “a n i ndepende ntcons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on” and thus coul d not“pr ovi de anybas i s forfede r al habea s corpus r el i ef . . . . ” R O A , D oc. 25 at12. W e agr ee. I n H err er a v. C ol l i ns , 506 U . S. 390, 400 ( 1993) , the Supr eme C our thel d that“[c ] l ai m s of ac tual i nnocenc e bas ed on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence have ne verbeen he l d t o s t at e a gr ound forfede r al habea s r el i ef a bs entan i ndepende ntcons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on occurr i ng i n the under l y i ng s t at e cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng

. . . . ” A sid e f

ro m h is c laim o f

in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e , w h ich w e c o n c lu d e lac k s m e rit, D a v is h a s n o t as se rte d a n yin d e p e n d e n t co n stitu tio n a l v io latio n th a t o c c u rre d d u rin g h is tr i al . T hus , hi s cl ai m of new l ydi s cover ed evi dence , s t andi ng al one, cannotpr ovi de the bas i s forfede r al habea s r el i ef.-7- I l l egal s ent ence D avi s cont ends thatthe s t at e tr i al courtvi ol at ed C ol or ado s t at e l aw byi m pos i ng c o n s e c u tiv e , ra th e r t h a n c o n c u rr e n t, s e n te n c e s f o r h is a rm e d ro b b e ry c o n v ic tio n s . A l though hi s ar gum enti s notent i r el ycl ear , D avi s appea r s t o be as s ert i ng thatconcurr ent s e n te n c e s w e re re q u ir e d b e c a u s e h is c o n v ic tio n s w e re a ll b a s e d o n th e s a m e e v id e n c e . S e e P e o p le v . M u c k le, 1 0 7 P .3 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 4 (C o lo . 2 0 0 5 ) (“ It is o n lyw h e n th e e v id e n c e w ill s uppor tno otherr eas onabl e i nfer ence than thatthe convi ct i ons w er e bas ed on i dent i cal evi dence thata s ent enci ng courtm us tfi nd thatthe def endanti s ent i t l ed t o concurr ent s ent enci ng. I n al l othercas es , the tr i al courtr et ai ns i t s di s cr et i on and i t s s ent enci ng d ec isi o n m u st be u p h eld u n less the tri al co u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n . ”). I ti s uncontr overt ed thatthi s cl ai m i s unexhaus t ed bec aus e D avi s fai l ed t o pr es ent it i n h is d ire c t ap p e a l o r in h is a p p lica tio n f o r sta te p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief. A lth o u g h D a v is r eques t ed the opportuni tyt o exhaus tthe cl ai m and r es ubm i ti taft erexhaus t i on, the di s tr i ctcourtr efus ed t o al l ow hi m t o do s o, concl udi ng that“the cl ai m now w oul d be barr ed as s ucce s s i ve and . . . bythe thr ee- y earC ol or ado s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on col l at er al att acks . ” R O A , D oc. 25 at5. I n turn, the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatthe cl ai m w as “pr ocedur al l ybarr ed bec aus e . . . D avi s ha[d] fai l ed t o demonstr at e ca us e and pr ej udi ce or a funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” I d. at6. I n hi s appl i cat i on forC O A , D avi s di s put es the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thathe w o u ld n o w b e p re c lu d e d f ro m ra isin g th e c laim in C o lo ra d o sta te c o u rt. A c c o rd in g to D avi s , C ol or ado R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 35( a) al l ow s forthe corr ect i on of an i l l egal-8-

s e n te n c e a t a n ytim e . A lth o u g h D av is ap p ea rs t o b e c o rrect reg ard ing the p rop ri etyo f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s pr ocedur al rul i ng, w e neve r thel es s concl ude thathe i s notent i t l ed t o a C O A on hi s i l l egal s ent ence cl ai m . A s not ed, i n or dert o obt ai n a C O A , D avi s m us tal s o es t abl i s h that “j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hether[hi s ] 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 r i ght . ” Sl ack, 529 U . S. at484. A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d on app eal , w e con cl ud e t hat hi s i l l egal s entence cl ai m i s fr i vo l ou s. In theiransw er t o D avis ’ pet i t i on, r es pondent s out l i ned i n det ai l , and w i thoutdi s put e fr om D avi s , the natur e of the a rm e d ro b b e ry c h a rg e s a n d th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a t tr ia l to s u p p o rt th o s e c h a rg e s . N ot abl y , eac h of the arm ed r obber i es occurr ed ata s epar at e t i m e and pl ace , and the evi dence pr es ent ed i n s uppor tof ea ch cha r ge w as ther efor e di ffe r ent . Forexampl e, eac h of the conve ni ence s t or e cl erks r obbed byD avi s t es t i fi ed attr i al . T her efor e, D avi s cannot es t abl i s h that , underC ol or ado l aw , the s t at e tr i al courtw as pr ecl uded fr om i m pos i ng cons ecut i ve s ent ence s . I n turn, D avi s cannotes t abl i s h anytype of f eder al cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on ar i s i ng outof hi s s ent enci ng. T he r eques tfora C O A i s D E N I E D , the mot i on t o pr ocee d I FP i s D E N I E D , and the m att eri s D I SM I SSE D . A ppel l ant ’ s “M ot i on O ppos i ng C our tC l erk’ s D eci s i on and Re q u e s t i n g Co u r t ’ s Re v i e w P u r s u a n tt o F . R. A. P . 1 0 th Ci r . R. 2 7 . 3 , ” i s DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge