T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10 C i r c. R . 32. 1. th 

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

### Ju ly18,2007 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 CH RI STOPHER PLOU SE,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 2315 v. D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co GE OR GE T AP I A,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C. N o. CI V - 04 - 10 66 - J H / D J S)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. C h risto p h e r P lo u se , a s tate p riso n e r, se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty ( “C O A ”) t hatw oul d al l ow hi m t o appea l fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1)(A ). B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t M r. Pl ous e has fai l ed t o m ake “ a subst anti al show i ng of the den i al of a c on st i tuti on al ri gh t , ” w e den yhis request fo r a C O A , a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. Id. § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ).-2- Backg r ound O n M ar ch 27, 1999, C hr i s t opherPl ous e att empt ed t o es cape fr om t he Sout hern N ew M exi co C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty , w her e he w as bei ng i ncar cer at ed for tw o pr i ors econd- degr ee mur derconvi ct i ons . M r . Pl ous e s m uggl ed a l ar ge r ock in to h is c e ll an d , w ith th e a id o f fe llo w in m a te R a n d a ll R e yn o ld s, u se d it t o hamm erthr ough the ce l l w al l . A ft ert he i nm at es m ade thei rw ayt hr ough t he pr i s on vent i l at i on s y s t em, guar ds appr ehende d them i n the pr i s on y ar d. A tt r i al M r . Pl ous e pr es ent ed a dur es s defe ns e, cl ai m i ng thathe w as uns afe att he Sout hern N ew M exi co C orr ect i onal Faci l i tyand thathe and M r . R eynol ds a tte m p te d to e s c a p e in o rd e r t o th e n tu rn th e m s e lv e s in to th e p ro p e r a u th o ri tie s . A j u ry s u b s e q u e n t l y c o n v i c t e d M r . P l o u s e o f e s c a p e f

r o m a p e n i t e n t i a ry. M r . Pl ous e r ai s es thr ee c l ai m s i n hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on: ( 1) t hathe w as deni ed effec t i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el , ( 2) t hathi s r i ghtt o a s peedyt r i al w as v io la te d , a n d (3 ) t h a t h e w a s d e n ie d h is ri g h t to m a te ri a l e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e . T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied re li ef, ad o p ti n g a m ag istrate jud g e’s find ing s tha t M r. P lo u se h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e sta te c o u rt a rriv e d a t a c o n c lu sio n in c o n sis ten t w ith thatr eac hed bythe Supr eme C our ton a ques t i on of l aw ; orunr eas onabl yappl i ed th e g o v e rn in g le g a l p ri n c ip le to th e fa c ts o f th e c a s e . S e e E l l i o tv . Wi l l i a ms , 248 F . 3 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 0 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).-3- D i s cus s i on T he deni al of a mot i on forr el i ef unde r28 U . S. C . § 2254 m aybe appe al ed o n ly if th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r t h is C o u rt fir s t is s u e s a C O A . Id . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 1 )( A ). A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I n or dert o m ake s uch a sh o w in g , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerort hat the i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A . I neffect i ve A s s i s t ance of C ounsel M r. P lo u se first c o n ten d s th a t h is tria l co u n se l w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly defi ci ent . T o pr ove i neffect i venes s of couns el M r . Pl ous e musts how t hat c o u n s e l’ s p e rfo rm a n c e w a s b o th in e ffe c tiv e a n d p reju d ic ia l to h is d e fe n s e . Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ). W h e n w e a n a ly z e stra teg ic d e c is io n s th e re is a d e fe re n c e to th e p ro fe s s io n a l ju d g m e n t o f th e a tto rn e y . C a rg le v . Mu lli n , 3 1 7 F .3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). See ge ner al l y Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at690 ( “[S] tr at egi c choi ces m ade a ft ert hor ough i nves t i gat i on of l aw and fa ct s r el evantt o pl aus i bl e opt i ons ar e vi r tual l yunchal l engea bl e”) . I f couns el per form s bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , t hen w e as k w hether ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tyt hat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , t he re s u lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. Id . at694.-4-

M r . Pl ous e ar gues thatcouns el fai l ed t o conductadequa t e pr e- tr i al i nv est i gati on –in part i cular , that tri al cou nsel did not i nv est i gate anyw i tnesses, d o c u m e n ts , o r e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld h a v e c o rr o b o ra te d M r. P lo u s e ’s te s tim o n y . M r . Pl ous e fa i l s t o s how , how ever , thatanyfur theri nves t i gat i on w oul d have al t er ed the out come of t he tr i al . M r . Pl ous e had the oppor tuni tyt o cr os s - exami ne pr i s on offi ci al s aboutcondi t i ons i ns i de the fa ci l i tyas w el l as t o el i ci ti nform at i on on pr i s on gangs and vi ol ence . T he defendantal s o t es t i fi ed t o the condi t i ons of hi s confi nement , and undercr os s - exami nat i on expl ai ned thathe had r efus ed pr ot ect i ve cus t odyi n l i eu of a t t empt i ng t o es cape . T her e i s no evi dence that f u rth e r in v e stig a tio n w o u ld h a v e a ltere d th e o u tco m e o f th e trial, a n d n o sp e c ific w i tnes s ordocumentw as excl uded thatw oul d have made couns el ’ s act i ons p reju d icia l. T he fa i l ur e t o cal l an expe r tw i tnes s l i kew i s e w as notpr ej udi ci al or d efici en t. In th is case itis un clea r ho w ad d it ion al t esti m o n yfro m an ex p ert w i tnes s s t at i ng thatM r . Pl ous e w as i n dangerw oul d benef i thi m , as he had t es t i fi ed thathe opt ed aga i ns tpr ot ect i ve cus t odyand otherw i tnes s es t es t i fi ed that he had a r atherext ens i ve hi s t oryof es cape att empt s . A s the Supr eme C our thas obs erved, “couns el . . . m aydi s s erve the i nt er es t s of hi s cl i entbyatt empt i ng a us el es s char ade. ” Un itedS ta tes v . C ro n ic , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 4 8 , 6 5 6 n . 1 9 (19 8 4 ). M r. P lo u s e ’s c o u n s e l m a yw e ll h a v e th o u g h t th a t e x p e rt te s tim o n yw a s e x a c tly th a t. T his C ou rti s not i n the posi t i on t o secon d-guess strat egic tri al decis i on s.-5-

M r . Pl ous e al s o ar gues thathi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen, m or e than hal fw aythr ough hi s t w o- dayt r i al , M r . Pl ous e–aga i ns tt he advi ce of hi s couns el and the court–el ect ed t o pr ocee d pro se . M r . Pl ous e cl ai m s t hatt he c o u rt, i n g ra n tin g h is re q u e st, c a u se d c o u n se l fo r M r. P lo u se to b e “ to tallya b se n t .

. . dur i ng a cr i t i cal s t age. ” Id . a t 6 5 9 n .2 5 . T h is is a n e w a rg u m e n t, w h ich th is C o u rt g e n e ra lly d o e s n o t c o n s id e r o n a p p e a l. See Tele- C om m uni cat i ons , Inc. v. C o m m ’r , 1 0 4 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). B u t ev e n if w e d id c o n sid e r it, th e fa c t th a t M r. P lo u se d ism iss e d h is c o u n se l an d c h o se to c o m p lete th e trial pro se agai ns tthe advi ce of the tr i al courtand af t erext ens i ve w arni ngs as t o the danger s of pr o s e li ti g ati o n d estroy s the b ase fro m w h ich th is argu m en t bu il d s. If the courtdet erm i nes thatthe r eques ti s know i ng and vol unt ary , and “the defe ndants t i l l el ect s t o pr ocee d pro se , [then] t he courtm us tperm i thi m t o do s o. ” United S tates v. P epp ers , 302 F. 3d 120, 133 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . A ny ab an d o n m en t byco u n sel d u ri n g a c ri ti ca l st ag e w as c o m p let elyo f M r. P lou se’s ow n doi ng. B . R i ght t o a Speedy T ri al I n B arkerv. Wi ngo , 4 0 7 U . S . 5 1 4 (19 7 2 ), the Supr eme C our tout l i ned four fac t or s fordet erm i ni ng w hethera defendanthas been de pr i ved of hi s r i ghtt o a sp e e d ytrial: (1 ) le n g th o f th e d e lay, (2 ) th e re a so n fo r th e d e lay, (3 ) th e e x ten t to w hi ch the defendantas s ert ed hi s s peedyt r i al r i ght s , and ( 4) pr ej udi ce t o the d e fe n d a n t. Id . a t 5 3 0

– 3 2 .-6-

T he N ew M exi co court , aft eral l ow i ng t hatthe tw enty - one mont hs that pas s ed betw een a r r ai gnm entand tr i al w as pr es um pt i vel ypr ej udi ci al , bal ance d thes e fa ct or s and conc l uded thatthe defendant ’ s r i ghtt o a s peedytr i al w as not vi ol at ed. W e agr ee. Pr i ordefe ns e couns el had r eques t ed thi r t een mont hs of del ay , and the fi r s tpr oven i ns t ance of the defendantas s er t i ng hi s r i ghtt o a s p e e d ytr ia l o c c u rr e d ju s t tw o m o n th s b e fo re th e tr ia l b e g a n . S e e id . a t 5 3 1 . B eca us e the defendantw as al r eadya s t at e pr i s oner , the pos s i bl e pr ej udi ce of p ro lo n g e d c o n fin e m e n t p ri o r t o tr ia l w a s lo w . S e e id . at532. W e conc l ude that M r. P lo u s e ’s ri g h t to a s p e e d ytr ia l w a s n o t v io la te d .

C . D eni al of

R i ght t o M at eri al l y E x cul pat ory E vi dence T h ird a n d fin a lly , M r. P lo u se a rg u e s th a t th e p ro se c u tio n w ith h e ld e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e , in c lu d in g a s e c u ri ty g ro u p th re a t m a n u a l a n d p h o to g ra p h s . W e agr ee w i th t he di s tr i ctcourtt hatbeca us e M r . Pl ous e fa i l ed t o m ake a B r ady obj ect i on attr i al aboutthe evi dence i n ques t i on, s ee Brady v. Mar yland , 37 3 U. S. 8 3 , 8 7 (19 6 3 ), h is cl aim is pro ce d u rall yb arred . “O n h ab ea s rev iew , this co u rt does notaddr es s i s s ues thathave be en defaul t ed i n s t at e courton an i ndepende nt and adeq uate s t at e proced ural groun d, un l ess the p et i t i on er can dem on strat e cause and pr ej udi ce ora funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” A nders on v. Si r m ons , 476 F. 3d 1131, 1140 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng E ngl is h v. C ody , 146 F. 3d 1257, 1259 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ) . B eca us e r equi r i ng a defendantt o m ake a B r ady obj ect i on at-7-

trial is a n in d e p e n d e n t an d a d e q u a te s tate re m e d y , the d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly deni ed r el i ef on the gr ounds t hatthe cl ai m w as notpr oper l ypr es erved. M r . Pl ous e al s o ar gues thatcouns el w as i neffect i ve i n fai l i ng t o m ake the r equi s i t e B r ady obj ect i on. W e di s agr ee. T he tr i al cour tdet erm i ned thatthe prosecuti on turned o ver al l exis t i ng , app l i cable evi den ce. C ou nsel for M r. P l ou se al r eadyhad the s ecur i tythr eatgr oup m anual i n hi s pos s es s i on w hen the tr i al b e g a n , an d th e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t an yo th e r m iss in g e v id e n c e e x iste d . W h ile M r . Pl ous e as s ert s thatphot ogr aphs , admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on form s , and other document s w oul d have c orr obor at ed hi s cl ai m s thathe tr i ed t o es cape outof du res s, he can no tshow t hat anyof these docu m ents actuall yexis t ed in the fir st p la c e . B eca us e ther e w as no r eas on fort r i al couns el t o obj ect , he w as not i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o do s o. C oncl usi on W e DE NY M r . Pl ous e’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge