UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

MARQUISE LELAND WHITE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT PATTON, Director, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 14-5113 

(D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00291-GKF-TLW) 

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

 

Before BACHARACH, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Marquise Leland White, through counsel, requests a certificate of appealability 

(COA) to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application 

for a writ of habeas corpus. We deny a COA and dismiss the proceeding. 

 A jury found Mr. White guilty of first degree murder, kidnapping, and first 

degree robbery. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his 

convictions and sentences. Mr. White then pursued relief under § 2254, raising five 

claims: (1) officers used force and duress to obtain a false confession from him, and 

admitting this confession deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial; (2) excluding 

 

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 16, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

expert testimony about false confessions denied him the ability to present a 

meaningful defense; (3) excluding testimony that his brother, Waitki Crawford, had 

confessed to their uncle that he committed the murder denied him the ability to 

impeach Mr. Crawford’s testimony and to present exculpatory evidence, violating his 

right to a fundamentally fair trial; (4) admitting a prior consistent statement by his 

cousin, Jhirimi McClendon, bolstered Mr. McClendon’s testimony, violating his right 

to a fundamentally fair trial; and (5) the cumulative effect of the four errors deprived 

Mr. White of a fundamentally fair trial. The district court denied relief on each claim 

and denied a COA. 

 To appeal, Mr. White must obtain a COA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), 

which requires him to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right,” id. § 2253(c)(2). 

This means that the applicant must show “that reasonable jurists could 

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 

(2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the applicant 

must show that the district court’s resolution of the constitutional claim 

was either “debatable or wrong.” Id.

United States v. Taylor, 454 F.3d 1075, 1078 (10th Cir. 2006). Because the OCCA 

considered Mr. White’s claims on the merits, § 2254(d) precludes federal habeas 

relief unless the OCCA’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court 

of the United States,” or was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in 
- 3 - 

the light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(d)(1), (2). “Thus, the decision whether to grant [the] COA request rests on 

whether reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong in light of the deference owed to the 

OCCA’s adjudication of [the] claims.” Howell v. Trammell, 728 F.3d 1202, 1225 

(10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Dockins v. Hines, 

374 F.3d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 2004) (“[Section 2254(d)’s] deferential treatment of 

state court decisions must be incorporated into our consideration of a habeas 

petitioner’s request for COA.”). 

 Before this court, Mr. White abandons his cumulative-error argument and 

focuses on his first four issues. But he almost entirely ignores the restrictions of 

§ 2254(d). The district court carefully and thoroughly explained why the OCCA’s 

decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court 

precedent. Having reviewed the COA application and Mr. White’s appendix, we 

conclude that Mr. White has not shown that the district court’s resolution of his 

claims was debatable or wrong. 

 We therefore deny Mr. White a COA for substantially the reasons stated in the 

district court’s decision filed on August 26, 2014. This matter is dismissed. 

 Entered for the Court 

 ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk