* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 4 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RANDALL E. HEDRICK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. STEVE HARGETT,

Respondent-Appellee. No. 00-6039 (D.C. No. 97-CV-1580-T) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK, ANDERSON, and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner was convicted in Oklahoma state court of causing injury to a minor child and feloniously pointing a firearm, a nd he was sentenced to-2-

consecutive terms of life and ten-years’ imprisonme nt. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) held thatseveral trial court errors affected the severity of petitioner’s sentences, an d, consequently, it reduced the sentences to twenty-five and five years. Petitione r filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserti ng the same claims considered by the state court: he received ineffective assist ance of counsel, the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of witness es, and the trial court improperly admitted evidence of other crimes and ba d acts and hearsay evidence. In addition, he claimed that the OCCA provided the wrong remedy for the trial errors by reducing his sentence instead of granting him a new trial. The district court denied the petition, as well as his applicati on for a certificate of appealability (COA). Petitioner is now before this court seeking a COA, which he must have in order to appeal the denial of his habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). He is entitled to a COA only if he makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. , § 2253(c)(2). To meet this standard where, as he re, the district court rejected the constitutional clai ms on the merits, “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel , 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000).-3-

The district court assessed petitioner’s constituti onal claims to determine whether the state court’s decision on the merits wa s either “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly es tablished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United State s,” or if the decision was “based on an unreasonable determination of the fact s in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). The district court concluded, first, that none of the trial errors rec ognized by the OCCA “‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in de termining the jury’s verdict,’” and that it had no “‘grave doubt’” about that concl usion. Appellant’s App. Vol. I at 163, 168 (quoting O’Neal v. McAninch , 513 U.S. 432, 435-36, 436 (1995)). As a result, the district court determined that anytrial error recognized by the OCCA was harmless. In addition, it held that petit ioner was not entitled to habeas relief on his claim of ineffective assistanc e of counsel because he had not shown that his defense was prejudiced by any defici ency in his trial attorney’s performance. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984). We have reviewed the record on appeal, and for subs tantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s December 23, 1999 order, we agree that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief under § 2254(d). We conclude that reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s assessment of the-4-

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Conseque ntly, we DENY petitioner’s application for a COA.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge