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

### A p ril12,2007 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 WARR E N HAR DI NG DE AN, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. OKL AHOMA DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ONS ; RO N WARD, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 5150 ( D. C. No . 0 3 - CV - 0 0 5 9 8 - T CK )

(N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antW arr en H ar di ng D ean, a s t at e i nm at e appe ar i ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y( C O A ) al l ow i ng hi m t o appea l fr om t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s or derdeny i ng r el i ef on hi s pet i t i on forhabea s corpus fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. B eca us e M r . D ean ha s fai l ed t o m ake a “s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , ” s ee i d. § 2253( c) ( 2) ; Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 3 -8 4 (2 0 0 0 ), w e d e n ya C O A a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. O n February13, 2001, M r . D ean w as s t opped byT ul s a, O kl ahoma pol i ce offi cer s aft erdr i vi ng t hr ough a s t op s i gn and fa i l i ng t o s i gnal a tur n. M r . D ean w as t he dr i verof the ca rand K i m ber l yH untw as hi s pas s enger . A ft erbei ng- 2 -

s t opped, M r . D ean c oul d notpr oduce a dr i ver ’ s l i cens e. T he pol i ce then as ked M r . D ean t o exi thi s car , and theyobs erved s ever al s m al l , t an crum bs l y i ng on t he dr i ver ’ s s eat . T he off i cer s s us pect ed the crum bs w er e cr ack c ocai ne and a s ked M r . D ean t o open hi s m out h s o t heycoul d chec k forhi dden drugs . M r . D ean ha d a l ar ge, t an r ock i n hi s m out h w hi ch he s patout . A s ear ch of the ca rpr oduced a n addi t i onal t hr ee t an r ocks . T he crum bs and r ocks w er e l at eri dent i fi ed as cr ack c o c a in e . M r . D ean a nd M s . H untw er e both arr es t ed and c har ged w i t h fel ony pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne. T he Tul s a C ount yPubl i c D efe nder ’ s O ffi ce w as ap p o inted to rep rese n t bo th d efen d an ts. O n M arc h 1 4 , 2 0 0 1 , M r. D ea n ’s appoi nt ed att or neyr eques t ed thathe be a l l ow ed t o w i t hdr aw . A n entr yon t he d o c k e t s h e e ts re fle c ts th a t th is re q u e s t w a s g ra n te d b yJ u d g e H a s k in s . N evert hel es s , t he s ame at t or neyappea r ed on beha l f of M r . D ean be for e J udge S i ng er on A pri l 11 , 20 01 . O n A pri l 16 , 20 01 , t hat s am e at t orneyrepr esent ed M s. H u n ta s s h e e n t e r e d a p l e a o f n o l o c o n t e n d e r e b e fo r e J u d g e H a r r i s . T w o d a ys l at er , on A pr i l 18, 2001, M r . D ean a ppear ed ata pr el i m i naryhear i ng befor e J udge H a sk in s, a g a in re p re se n ted b yth e sa m e a tto rn e y . O n Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 , Ju d g e H a rris c o n d u c ted a h e a rin g o n M r. D e a n ’s p ro se m o tio n s fo r a n e w a tto rn e ya n d to s uppr es s evi dence . T hos e mot i ons w er e deni ed. T he s ame at t or neyt hen r epr es ent ed M r . D ean thr oughouthi s t r i al , w hi ch w as hel d befor e J udge Pet er s on. M r. D e a n w a s s u b se q u e n tlyc o n v icte d b ya ju ryo f b e in g a fe lo n in- 3 -

pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne af t erform erconvi ct i on of tw o orm or e fe l oni es ( C ountI ) and fordr i vi ng w i t houta dr i ver ’ s l i cens e ( C ountI I ) . H e w as s ent ence d to se rv e fo rty -fiv e y e a rs o f im p riso n m e n t an d to p a ya fin e o f $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 fo r C o u n t I and t o s erve thi r t yday s i n t he countyj ai l on C ountI I , w i t h t he s ent ence s t o run concurr ent l y . H e i m m edi at el yappea l ed hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence t o t he O k laho m a C o u rto f C ri m inal A p p ea ls ( O C C A ). T h e O C C A rejected all o f M r. D ean’ s ar gum ent s i n a s um m aryor deri s s ued on J anuary22, 2003. M r . D ean then fi l ed hi s fede r al pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o § 2254. I n t he pet i t i on, M r . D ean a r gued: ( 1) t hatt he s t at e tr i al cour tcomm i t t ed funda m ent al e rro r b yre f

u sin g to a p p o in t co n flict-f re e c o u n se l in v io latio n o f th e S ix th A m endment , ( 2) t hatt he j ur yw as i m pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed as t o t he mi ni m um s ent ence forpos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance , and ( 3) t hathi s for t y - fi ve y ear s ent ence w as exce s s i ve and s houl d be modi fi ed. U n d e r t h e A n tite rr o ri s m a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t ( A E D P A ), a pet i t i onerm ayobt ai n fede r al habea s r el i ef onl yi f the s t at e courtdeci s i on w as contr aryt o or“i 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 byt he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , ” or“w 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 t he St at e courtpr ocee di ng. ” 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ; W i l l i ams v. T ay l or , 529 U . S. 362, 402- 03 ( 2000) . T hus , w hen a s t at e courtappl i es t he corr ect fe d era l l aw to d en yreli ef, a fed era l cou rtw il l on lyg ran t r eli ef if th e state c o u rt- 4 -

appl i ed fe der al l aw i n an obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e manner . H ooperv. M ul l i n, 31 4 F . 3d 11 62 , 11 69 (10t h C i r. 20 02 ). F urtherm ore, a fed eral hab eas cou rtm ust p re su m e sta te c o u rt fa c tu a l fin d in g s to b e c o rre c t an d re q u ire th e p e tit io n e r to re b u t th a t p re s u m p tio n w ith c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254( e) ( 1) ; H ooper , 314 F. 3d at1167. W i t h r es pectt o M r . D ean’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar gum ent , t he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned thatt he O C C A ’ s adj udi cat i on of the cl ai m w as not contr aryt o oran unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of Supr eme C our tpr ece dent . M r . D ean c la im e d th a t c o u n s e l’ s in e ffe c tiv e n e s s re s u lte d f ro m a c o n flic t o f

in te re s t. E s s ent i al l y , M r . D ean w ant ed t o cal l M s . H untas a w i t nes s , buthi s couns el ref u sed . C o u n sel ex p lai n ed to Ju d g e P eterso n that itw o u ld n o t be in M r. D ea n ’s bes ti nt er es tt o cal l M s . H unti n l i ghtof herpr obabl e t es t i m onyand the exi s t ence o f c re d ib ili tyiss u e s s tem m in g f ro m h e r c rim in a l re c o rd . A lth o u g h th e re c o rd is uncl ear , t he di s tr i ctcour tbel ow s ur m i s ed thatM s . H untw oul d t es t i fyt hatal l t he crack cocaine fou nd i n the veh i cl e w as hers . T o p revai l on an ineffecti ve assi st ance o f cou nsel cl ai m , a peti t i on er m ust s how t hatcouns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci entand thatt he pet i t i onerw as p r ej u d i c e d a s a r e s u l t . Str i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U. S. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . To s how i neffect i ve as s i s t ance bas ed on a c onfl i ctof i nt er es t , a pet i t i onerw ho “rai sed no obj ect i on att ri al m ustdem on strat e t hat an actual confli ctof int eres t adver s el yaffect ed hi s l aw y er ’ s per form ance . ” C uy l erv. Sul l i van, 446 U . S. 335,- 5 -

348 ( 1980) . A ppl y i ng t hes e s t andar ds t o t he O C C A ’ s det erm i nat i on, t he di s t r i ct cour tnot ed thatM r . D ean fai l ed t o obj ectt o couns el ’ s ongoi ng r epr es ent at i on at t r i al . I tal s o not ed thatM r . D ean fai l ed t o demonstr at e thathi s couns el rep rese n ted c o n fli cti n g interests. M o reo v er, i t no ted th at th e tri al co u rt ’s s uppos ed fa i l ur e t o i nqui r e i nt o t he al l eged c onfl i ctof i nt er es tw as i m m at er i al beca us e M r . D ean ne vers how ed thatt he al l eged c onfl i ctadver s el yaffect ed couns el ’ s per form ance –t hati s , t hatt he al l eged c onfl i ctaffect ed the ade quacyof re p re se n tatio n . S e e M ick e n s v . T a y lo r, 5 3 5 U .S . 1 6 2 , 1 7 2 -7 3 (2 0 0 2 ). B e c a u se it found M r . D ean fai l ed t o s how defi ci entper form ance , t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded t hatt he O C C A ’ s adj udi cat i on of the cl ai m w as notan unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of S u p rem e C o u rtp rec ed en t. S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ). A s a s econd gr ound forr el i ef, M r . D ean a r gued thatt he j ur ys houl d have been i ns t ruct ed r egar di ng change s m ade t o O kl a. St at . t i t . 21, §51. 1 t hatt ook e ffe c t a f te r M r. D e a n w a s a rr e s te d . M r. D e a n w a s a rr e s te d o n F e b ru a ry 1 3 , 2 0 0 1 . O n J ul y1, 2001, § 51. 1 w as amended t o pr ovi de, foroffe nder s w i t h t w o pr evi ous fe lo n ies , a m in im u m sta tu to ryse n ten c e o f th re e tim e s th e m in im u m p ro v id e d in t he appl i cabl e fe l onys t atut e fora fi r s t - t i m e offender . T he mi ni m um s ent ence for M r . D ean’ s drug offe ns e w as t w o y ear s , s o, havi ng t w o pr i orfel oni es , M r . D ean w oul d have be en s ubj ectt o a mi ni m um s ent ence of s i x y ear s , r athert han the t we n t y - y e a rmi n i mu m i n e ffe c tp r i o rt o t h e s t a tu t e ’ s a me n d me n t . Th e OCCA r ej ect ed thi s cl ai m beca us e i tdet erm i ned thatt he amendm entw as notm eantt o be- 6 -

re tr o a c tiv e u n d e r O k la h o m a la w . T he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l ynot ed thatfede r al habea s r el i ef doe s notl i e for e rr o rs o f s ta te la w . S e e E s te lle v . M c G u ir e , 5 0 2 U .S . 6 2 , 6 7 -6 8 (1 9 9 1 ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , i tn o t e d t h a tM r . De a n wo u l d o n l yb e e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f i f t h e OCCA w r ongl yappl i ed O kl ahoma l aw and i f fa i l i ng t o appl yt he amendm ent r etr oact i vel yr es ul t ed i n a deni al of due pr oces s . See A y cox v. L yt l e, 196 F. 3d 1174, 1179- 80 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . B eca us e the O C C A has hel d t hatt he amendm ent t o § 51. 1 w as notr etr oact i ve, s ee W i l l i ams v. St at e, 59 P. 3d 518, 519 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 2002) , t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatM r . D ean ha d fai l ed t o s how an err orof s t at e l aw , m uch l es s t hatdeny i ng hi m r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of the amendm entw as “arbi t r aryi n t he cons t i tut i onal s ens e; t hati s , [s hocki ng t o t he] ju d ic ia l c o n s c ie n c e .” A y c o x , 1 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 0 . W i t h r egar d t o t he thi r d cl ai m , t hatM r . D ean’ s s ent ence w as exce s s i ve, t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed that , att he t i m e of hi s cr i m e, O kl ahoma had no m axi m um s ent ence fora habi tual offe nderl i ke M r . D ean, w ho t he evi dence r efl ect ed had e lev e n p rio r fe lo n yc o n v ictio n s. It fo u n d th a t th e O C C A h a d a dju d ica ted th is cl ai m corr ect l y , beca us e w her e a s ent ence i s i m pos ed w i thi n t he maxi m um pr ovi ded bys t atut e, t her e i s no bas i s forhabea s r el i ef. See M urphyv. O kl ahoma, 974 F. 2d 1345 ( T abl e) at*1 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( ci t i ng C ooperv. U ni t ed St at es , 403 F. 2d 71, 73 ( 10t h C i r . 1968) ) . T he di s t r i ctcour tfur t hernot ed thatt he s ent ence w as notgr os s l ydi s pr opor t i onat e t o M r . D ean’ s cr i m e, s uch thati tcons t i tut ed- 7 -

cruel and unus ual puni s hm enti n vi ol at i on of the Ei ght h A m endment . See L o ck y er v . A n d rad e, 53 8 U . S . 6 3 , 7 2 -73 (20 0 3 ). U nderA E D PA , w e maynoti s s ue a CO A unl es s “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 . ” Sl ack, 529 U . S. at 483. I n ot herw or ds , a C O A w i l l onl yi s s ue i f an a ppl i cantcan s how “that r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe 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 s e r v e e n c o u r a g e me n tt o p r o c e e d f u r t h e r . ” I d . a t4 8 4 . Ho we v e r , a s t h e S u p r e me C o u rtex p lai n ed in M il ler-E l v. C o ck rell , 5 3 7 U . S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 6 (20 0 3 ), w e a re req u ir ed to “lo o k to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f A E D P A to p eti ti o n er’s con st i tuti on al cl ai m s and ask w hethert hat r esol uti on w as deba t able am on gst j ur i s t s of r eas on. ” A ft err evi ew , w e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ctcour tappl i ed the pr operpr ece denti n r evi ew i ng t he O C C A ’ s di s pos i t i on of M r . D ean’ s appea l and t hati t s r es ol ut i on of M r . D ean’ s cl ai m s i s notr eas onabl ydebat abl e. W e D E N Y a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge