A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### M ay17,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT G L E N F O L S O M,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. E RI C F RA NKL I N,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee, and S T AT E OF OKL AHOMA,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 6172 ( D . C . N o . C I V - 0 5 - 1 2 4 0 - W) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , M c KAY , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. A n O kl ahoma t r i al cour tconvi ct ed G l en Fol s om of comm i t t i ng ni ne fel oni es , i ncl udi ng arm ed r obbery , ki dnapi ng, and r ape, s ent enci ng hi m t o 424 y ear s of i ncar cer at i on. M r . Fol s om ’ s di r ectappea l and s t at e pet i t i on for- 2-

pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pr oved of no a vai l . E ventual l y , M r . Fol s om fi l ed a pe t i t i on fo r a w ri t of

h ab ea s co rpu s, u n d er 28 U . S. C . § 2254, i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed r el i ef, and Mr . F o l s o m fi l e d w i t h u s a r e q u e s tfo ra c e r t i fi c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty( “ C O A ” ) . We g ra n ted re v iew to h e a r M r. F o lso m ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e trial c o u rt in f rin g e d h is Si xt h A m endmentr i ght s byal l ow i ng hi m t o s hed hi s appoi nt ed couns el and pr ocee d pro se att r i al , as w el l as hi s ar gum entthatthe courtfai l ed t o affor d due pr oces s w hen as s es s i ng hi s compet encyats ent enci ng. A ft era ful l vett i ng of M r . Fol s om ’ s ar gum ent s and forr eas ons expl or ed bel ow , w e affi r m the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. * * * O n A ugus t17, 2002, G l en Fol s om , arm ed w i th a handgun, ent er ed a vi deo r ent al s t or e i n T ecumse h, O kl ahoma, r obbed tw o femal e cl erks , fi r ed hi s w eapon, for ced the cl erks i nt o hi s car , dr ove them i nt o the country , and s exual l yas s aul t ed t hem. I n r es pons e, t he St at e of O kl ahoma char ged M r . Fol s om w i th tw o count s of r obberyw i t h a fi r earm ; t w o count s of ki dnapi ng; one countof r ape by i ns t rum ent at i on; t w o count s of att empt ed fi r s t - degr ee r ape byfor ce a nd fea r ; one countof pos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng the comm i s s i on of a fel ony ; and one c ount o f p o s s e s s i o n o f

a fi r e a r m a f

t e rfo r m e rc o n v i c t i o n o f a fe l o n y. J us tbefor e hi s s chedul ed tr i al , M r . Fol s om t ol d hi s att orneyC r egg D . W ebb t hathe w i s hed t o pr ocee d pro se . A ft erthe s t at e tr i al cour taffor ded M r . Fol s om- 3-

the c h an ce to m u ll h is r eq u est o v er the w ee k en d , M r. F o lsom rea ffirm ed h is de sir e t o pr ocee d pro se , th o u g h w ith M r. W e b b ’s c o n tin u e d a s s is ta n c e a n d a d v ic e . I T ria l T r. at 6 . T h e trial c o u rt e x p lain e d to M r. F o lso m th a t h e h a d a S ix th A m en d m en t r igh t t o rep rese n t him self, bu t th at th e c o u rtfirstn ee d ed to en su re M r . Fol s om m ade thi s “verys er i ous ” dec i s i on “fr eel y , ” “vol unt ar i l y , ” and “know i ngl y . ” Id. a t6 - 7 . To wa r d th a te n d , th e c o u r ts u p p l i e d M r . F o l s o m a w r i t t en ques t i onnai r e, i ns t ruct ed hi m t o compl et e i t , and adj ourned the p ro c e e d in g s to g iv e M r. F o ls o m tim e to c o n te m p la te h is a n s w e rs . See i d. a t 7 . U pon r etur ni ng fr om r ece s s , the tr i al cour tas ked M r . Fol s om t o t ake the s ta n d a n d p ro c e e d e d to e x a m in e h im u n d e r o a th . See i d. at8-17. Th e cou rtfi rs t ens ur ed thatM r . Fol s om had r ead, under s t ood, and ans w er ed truthful l y“ea ch and e v e ry q u e s tio n ” o n th e w ri tte n q u e s tio n n a ir e , i d. at8, l earni ng i n the process, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t M r. F o lso m p re v io u slyre p re se n ted h im se lf in a c iv il c a s e a n d h a d e a rn e d a G e n e ra l E q u iv a le n c yD ip lo m a . See I T ri a l T r. a t 8 , 1 3 -1 4 . T he courtt hor oughl ydi s cus s ed w i th M r . Fol s om the di s advant ages of pr ocee di ng pro se a n d th e a d v a n ta g e s o f re p re s e n ta tio n b yc o u n s e l. See i d. at9- 13. T he cour tt hen ens ur ed thatM r . Fol s om had r ece i ved, r ead, and under s t ood t he c h a rg e s a g a in st h im , alo n g w ith th e p o ss ib le p e n a lti e s a ss o c iate d w ith a g u ilty v e rd ic t. See i d. a t 1 3 . A tno t i m e di d M r . Fol s om orhi s couns el i nform the courtof anym edi cal hi s t or yt hatm i ghtpr ecl ude M r . Fol s om fr om pr ocee di ng pro se . T o th e c o n tr a r y,C ount s 6 and 7 of the i ndi ctm entchar ged M r . Fol s om w i th tw o count s of 1 (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 4- t he courtdi r ect l yas ked M r . Fol s om , “[h] ave y ou everbeen unde rthe ca r e of a ps y chi atr i s t , ps y chol ogi s t , orot herm ent al heal th pr ofes s i onal ?” i d. a t 1 4 , to w hi ch M r . Fol s om r es ponded, “[y ] es , s i r . ” Id. T h e c o u rt fo llo w e d u p , in q u ir in g , “[w ] oul d t hati n anyw ayi nt er fer e w i th y ourabi l i tyt o pr ocee d her e t oday ?” Id. M r . Fol s om ans w er ed fl at l y , “[n] o, s i r . ” I T r i al T r . at14. Pur s ui ng the s ubj ect fur t her , t he courtt hen as ked a s er i es of ques t i ons t o ens ur e thatM r . Fol s om knew his l ocati on , had no tt aken m i nd -al t eri ng drugs or m edicat i on s duri ng the co urse of the pr ocee di ngs , and then aga i n as ked i n fourdi ffe r entw ay s – both i n the aff i r m at i ve and ne gat i ve – w hetherM r . Fol s om w as cert ai n he w ant ed t o pr ocee d pro se . See i d. at14- 15. O nl yaft eral l thi s di d the courtrul e M r . Fol s om “know i ngl y , i nt el l i gent l y , and vol unt ar i l y ” w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o couns el and gr ant ed M r . Fol s om ' s r eques tt o pr ocee d pro se . Id. at15 -16. T he co urtal so d ir ec ted th at M r. W eb b w o u ld co n ti n u e to s erv e a s M r. F o lsom ’s l eg al ad v isor, and thatM r . Fol s om coul d tur n overthe r epr es ent at i on of hi s cas e t o M r . W ebb at a n ytim e . See i d. at16- 17. D u r i n g t r i a l , M r . F o l s o m m a d e o p e n i n g a n d c l o s i n g s t a t e m e n t s t o th e j u r y, exami ned the pr os ecut i on’ s w i t nes s es , r es ponded t o the evi dence atthe cl os e of t he pr os ecut i on’ s cas e, t ook t he s t and on hi s ow n behal f, and ca l l ed an a ddi t i onal w i t ness. D espi t e his effo rt s, t he juryfou nd M r. F ols om gu i l tyon nine cou nts . 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 at t empt ed fi r s t - degr ee r ape. T he j uryfound M r . Fol s om gui l tyof the att empt ed fi r s t - degr ee r ape c har ged i n C ount6, butnotgui l tyof the att empt ed fi r s t - degr ee r ape c har ged i n C ount7. T he j ur yi ns t ead found M r . Fol s om gui l tyof the le s s e r- in c lu d e d c ri m e o f s e x u a l b a tte ry. O n cro ss-ex am ination , M r. F o lsom ad m itted h is un d erstan d ing that the ju ry 2 had recom m end ed h i s l on g p eri od of incarcer at i on , and he u nd ers t oo d at l east s om e of the cha r ges agai ns thi m . H e al s o corr ect ed an O kl ahoma pr os ecut oron t he mi s t aken a s s ert i on t hatO kl ahoma char ged M r . Fol s om forhi s fi r i ng a w eapon d u rin g th e c o u rse o f

th e a lleg e d a ss a u lt. T he guar ds t es t i fi ed thatM r . Fol s om had bee n angry , frus tr at ed, confus ed, 3 a n d d e p re ss e d ; fo u g h t w ith o th e r in m a tes ; p u n c h e d o u t a w in d o w a t th e c ityjail; (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 5- P ri o r t o h is sen tenc ing , M r. F o lsom sen t a l ett er to the O k laho m a tri al co u rt r eques t i ng appoi nt ed couns el on the bas i s thathe s uffe r ed fr om a medi cal condi t i on t hathe bel i eved mi ghti nt er fer e w i th hi s cont i nued abi l i tyt o pr ocee d pro se . A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, the courtpr om pt l yr e- appoi nt ed couns el for M r . Fol s om and then as ked fordet ai l s aboutthe medi cal condi t i on. M r . Fol s om d isc lo se d to th e c o u rt fo r th e first tim e th a t h e h a d b e e n d iag n o se d w ith p a ra n o id s chi zophr eni a i n 1987 and bi pol ardi s or deri n 2002, and he i ndi cat ed thathe d o u b ted h is m en tal co m p eten cyto p roc ee d w ith sen tenc ing . T h e tri al co u rt sc h e d u led a th re sh o ld c o m p e ten c yh e a rin g a t w h ich M r. F o lso m tes tifie d th a t, s i nce hi s t r i al , he had tw i ce a t t empt ed s ui ci de, been una bl e t o r eca l l pr evi ous cour tpr ocee di ngs , and w as no l ongerabl e t o under s t and the l egal pr oces s or as s i s t hi s couns el on s ent enci ng i s s ues . B ycontr as t , t hr ee j ai l guar ds t es t i fi ed 2 t hat , des pi t e s om e of M r . Fol s om ’ s err at i c beha vi or , t heybel i eved that 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 a n d th re a te n e d s u ic id e .

- 6- M r . Fol s om ’ s m ent al heal t h and under s t andi ng of the l egal pr oces s had not d e t e r i o r a t e d s i n c e t h e j u r y fo u n d h i m g u i l ty. A tt he cl os e of the compet encyhear i ng, the O kl ahoma t r i al cour tfound – especi al l yaft er observi ng fi rs t han d M r. F ols om ’s pro se per form ance and ac k n o w ledg ing that h e h ad p rev iou slyrep rese n ted h im self in c o u rt– that “[ t] h ere i s abs ol ut el yno doubti n m ym i nd [M r . Fol s om ] i s compet entw i thi n the meani ng of the l aw , ” and thatM r . Fol s om ’ s compet encycl ai m w as “an e ffortt o del aythe effor t s of j us t i ce. ” V I T r i al T r . at775 . T he O kl ahoma t r i al cour ts ent ence d M r. F o ls o m to , in tera lia , 424 y ear s of i ncar cer at i on. M r. F o lso m a p p e a led to th e O k lah o m a C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls (“O C C A ”), al l eging t he O klahom a t ri al cou rterr ed b y , am on g o ther things, a llo w in g h im to p ro c e e d a t trial pro se w i thoutadequa t el yi nqui r i ng i nt o hi s l egal a b i l i t yt o d o s o ( “ wa i v e r - o f- c o u n s e l c l a i m” ) , a n d fa i l i n g t o h o l d a f u l l - b l o wn c o m p e te n c ye x a m in a tio n b e fo re s e n te n c in g (“ c o m p e te n c yh e a ri n g c la im ” ). T he O C C A aff

i r m ed, hol di ng as t o M r . Fol s om ’ s w ai ver - of- couns el cl ai m that “the r ecor d as a w hol e demonstr at es [thatM r . Fol s om ] w as compet entt o pr ocee d pro se att r i al ”; t hatt he “tr i al cour tm ade appr opr i at e i nqui r i es t o m ake that d e ter m in a tio n ” ; an d th a t “[ t]h e re c o rd a s a w h o le s u g g e sts a n d su p p o rts a v a lid w a iv e r o f

th e ri g h t to c o u n s e l, b ya c o m p e te n t d e fe n d a n t.” O C C A S u m m a ry O p .,- 7-

R. d o c . 1 7 , e x . 3 , a t3 . As t o M r . F o l s o m’ s c o mp e t e n c yh e a r i n g c l a i m, th e OCCA hel d t hatt he O kl ahoma t r i al cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n rul i ng that M r . Fol s om fai l ed t o “r ai s e s uffi ci entdoubtas t o hi s compet encyt o w arr antan e x a m in a tio n ” b e fo re s e n te n c in g . Id. a t 2 -3 . M r. F o lso m ’s s u b se q u e n t effo rts to o b ta in p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f in O k la h o m a s ta te c o u rt s p ro v e d u n f ru itf u l. A fter ex h au sti n g h is st ate c o u rtrem ed ies, M r. F o lsom fil ed a p eti ti o n fo r a w r i tof habe as corpus i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ct of O kl ahoma. I n t hi s pet i t i on, M r . Fol s om agai n pur s ued hi s w ai ver - of- couns el cl ai m and compet encyhear i ng cl ai m s . A s t o the form er , the di s tr i ctcour thel d as “a r eas onabl e appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw ” the O C C A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe e n tire r e c o rd , inc lu d in g th e O k lah o m a trial c o u rt’s e x a m in a tio n o f a n d w a rn in g to M r . Fol s om , s uffi ced t o es t abl i s h a know i ng, i nt el l i gent , and vol unt aryw ai verof couns el . A s t o t he l att er , t he di s tr i ctcour t , ci t i ng 28 U . S. C . § 2254( e) ( 1) , rul ed t hatcompet encyi s a fa ctual i s s ue forthe s t at e court s and fe der al cour t s m us ttr eat a s p r e s u mp t i v e l yc o r r e c tt h e Ok l a h o ma c o u r t ’ s fi n d i n g s . Be c a u s e th e Ok l a h o ma trial c o u rt h e ld a th re sh o ld c o m p e ten c yh e a rin g a n d fo u n d M r. F o lso m c o m p e ten t, a n d b e c a u se M r. F o lso m fa iled to re b u t th e p re su m p tio n o f h is c o m p e ten c e w ith cl earand convi nci ng evi dence , t he di s tr i ctcour tfound i t s el f pow er l es s t o gr ant M r . Fol s om ’ s r eques t ed habe as r el i ef.A panel of thi s cour tpr evi ous l ygr ant ed M r . Fol s om ’ s C O A on the 4 foll ow i ng i ssues: 1) W hethert he st at e t ri al cou rtviol at ed h i s procedu ral du e process rig h ts b yfa ili n g to c o n d u c t an a d e q u a te h e a rin g o n th e iss u e o f h is c o m p e ten c yto sta n d trial; 2) W hethert he st at e t ri al cou rtviol at ed h i s subst anti ve d ue p rocess r i ght s byfi ndi ng hi m compet entt o s t and tr i al ; and 3) W hetherFol s om w as deni ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o be r epr es ent ed bycouns el att r i al beca us e he di d notknow i ngl yand in tellig e n tlyw a iv e h is rig h t to c o u n se l. O r derG r ant i ng i n Par tand D eny i ng i n Par tan A ppl i cat i on fora C er t i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i t y , at3.

- 8- M r . F o l s o m th e r e a f

t e rs o u g h tf

r o m u s a COA, e s s e n t i a l l yl o d g i n g th e s a me a rg u m e n ts, a n d w e g ra n ted h is re q u e st fo r re v iew in p a rt. 4 * * * “I n habea s cas es , w e r evi ew t he fe der al di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l egal concl us i ons de novo, appl y i ng t he s ame r evi ew of the s t at e courtdeci s i on as t he di s tr i ct cour t . ” Jacks on v. R ay , 3 9 0 F .3 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). U ndert he r el evantA E D PA s t andar d, w her e fa ctual and l egal i s s ues have a l r eady been a dj udi cat ed i n s t at e court , a fe der al courtm ayonl ygr anta w r i tof habe as corpus i f thatadj udi cat i on ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw 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 fe der al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C our t ; or( 2) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as bas ed on- 9-

an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof evi dence pr es ent ed i n the s ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g . 28 U . S. C . §§ 2254( d) ( 1) and ( 2) . Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as t he di s t r i ctcour t , w e agr ee thatthe O kl ahoma cour t s ’ r es ol ut i on of M r . Fol s om ’ s cl ai m s di d notr epr es entan unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw oran unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence . W e s t artbyacknow l edgi ng t he bedr ock cons t i tut i onal pr i nci pl e that M r. F o lsom enjoy s a righ t t o w aive h is r igh t t o co u n sel “k n o w ing [ly ], i nt el l i gent [l y ] , and vol unt ar [i l y ] . ” See Maynar d v. B oone , 468 F. 3d 665, 676 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . T r i al cour t s have “ the s er i ous and w ei ghtyr es pons i bi l i ty. . . of det erm i ni ng w hethert her e i s an i nt el l i gentand compet entw ai verbythe ac cus ed. ” S e e id . ( ci t i ng Joh nson v. Zerbst , 304 U . S. 458, 465 ( 1938) ) . T o ful fi l l that r es pons i bi l i t y , “a j udge musti nves t i gat e as l ong and as thor oughl yas the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e befor e hi m demand. . . . T he fa ctthatan ac cus ed may t el l hi m t hathe i s i nform ed of hi s r i ghtt o couns el and des i r es t o w ai ve thi s r i ght does notaut om at i cal l yend the j udge’ s r es pons i bi l i ty . ” Id. at677 ( ci t i ng Von Mol tke v . G i l l i es , 3 3 2 U . S . 7 0 8 , 7 2 3 -24 (19 4 8 )). In th is c a se , M r. F o lso m in fo rm e d th e trial c o u rt th a t h e h a d p re v io u sly been unde rt he ca r e of ment al heal th pr ofes s i onal s . I n r es pons e, the courtas ked,

“ [ w ]o u ld th a t in a n yw a yin ter fe re w ith y o u r a b ili tyto p ro c e e d h e re to d a y ? ” ; to w hich M r. F ols om answ ered, “[n]o, si r. ” T ho ug h the cou rtproceed ed to ask M r . Fol s om fol l ow up ques t i ons , had the courtdel ved more deepl y( orhad- 10-

M r . Fol s om and hi s couns el been mor e forthcomi ng) i tm i ghthave l earned that M r. F o ls o m h a d b e e n p re v io u s ly d ia g n o s e d w ith s e ri o u s m e n ta l h e a lth c o n d itio n s . L i ke Von Mol tke , t hi s cas e thus s erves t o i l l us tr at e how a courtm aybe l eft “ent i r el yunaw ar e of the fa ct s es s ent i al t o an i nform ed dec i s i on t hatan ac cus ed has exec ut ed a va l i d w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o couns el . ” Von Mol tke , 3 3 2 U .S . a t 7 2 4 . Fort hi s r eas on, w e enc our age tr i al cour t s t o do m or e than r eci t e a s etof ques t i ons byr ot e; w e emphas i ze Von Mol tke ’ s t eac hi ng t hattheym us tengage the ac cus ed i n a r eal effor tt o uncovert he r el evantfac t s , j us tas w e emphas i ze thatexi s t i ng couns el and the w i t nes s have a n obl i gat i on t o be ful l yfor thcomi ng w i th r el evant fa c ts u n iq u e ly in th e irh o ld . N ev erthe less, as a ck n o w ledg ed b ythe d istri ct co u rt , the O C C A ’s d eterm ination that h e w as a ffo rde d that ri g h t i s d ifficu ltto as sail u n d er A E D P A ’s stric t sta n d a rd s. M r. F o lso m in d ica ted th a t h e h a d re p re se n ted h im se lf in a c iv il cas e and ha d obt ai ned a G ener al E qui val encyD i pl om a. I n none of thei rw r i t t en oror al ans w er s di d M r . Fol s om orhi s couns el gi ve the courtanyr eas on t o doubt M r. F o lsom ’s co m p eten cyat tri al. A n d M r. F o lsom ’s co n d u ct du ri n g tr ial , w h ere he pr es ent ed hi s cas e fa i r l yw el l , pl ai nl ybol s t er ed the tr i al cour t ’ s convi ct i on t hat he w as compet entt o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o couns el . W e ar e poi nt ed t o no pr ece dent or fact , and hav e dis cerned n on e ou rs el ves, sugg est i ng the O klahom a cou rt s’ di s pos i t i on of M r . Fol s om ’ s w ai verof couns el cl ai m underthes e ci r cumst ance s fe ll a fo u l o f

A E D P A ’s tw in “ u n re a s o n a b le n e s s ” s ta n d a rd s . S e e g e n e ra lly- 11-

Mayn ard , 468 F. 3d at671 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed) ( “[O ] nl yt he mosts er i ous m i s appl i cat i ons of Supr eme C our tpr ece dent w ill b e a b a sis fo r re lief u n d e r § 2 2 5 4 . . . . It is n o t en o u g h th a t th e d e c isio n is cl ear l yw r ong ort hatt he r evi ew i ng cour tw oul d have r eac hed a c ontr arydeci s i on.

. . . [T] he s t a t e c ou r tde c i s i on mus tbe a ts uc h t e ns i on w i th g ov e rni ng U . S. S up rem e C ou rtpreceden t s, or so i nad equ at el ysupp ort ed b ythe record, or so a rb itr a ry a s to b e u n re a s o n a b le .” ). A s to M r. F o lsom ’s co m p eten cyh ea ri n g claim , an d as th e d istri ct co u rt corr ect l yobs erved, C ongr es s has i ns truct ed us thatcompet encyi s a fa ctual i s s ue fo r th e sta te c o u rts a n d th a t th e O k lah o m a c o u rts’ fin d in g s a re p re su m p tiv e ly c o rr e c t. See i d. at673- 74. M r . Fol s om fai l s t o s uppl yus , as he must , w i th cl ear an d co n v incin g ev iden ce that the O k laho m a c o u rt s’ fa ctua l fi n d ing s w ere e rr o n e o u s . See i d. W h ile w e d o n o t d o u b t th e p re se n c e o f e v id e n c e th a t co u ld hav e l ed a reasonab l e fact fi nd er t o q uest i on M r. F ols om ’s m ental facu l t i es ( e. g. , M r. F o lso m ’s te stified th a t h e tw ice a ttem p ted su icid e ; g u a rd s te stified o f th e ir per cept i on of M r . Fol s om ’ s vol at i l e emot i ons and vi ol entbehavi or , s uch as fi ght i ng w i t h ot heri nm at es , punchi ng outa w i ndow atthe ci tyj ai l , and t hr eat eni ng s ui ci de) , nei t hercan w e s hyatthe pr es ence of evi dence t endi ng i n t he oppos i t e di r ect i on ( e. g. , M r . F o l s o m’ s a d mi s s i o n o f h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

s o me char ges and j ur y ’ s s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on; M r . Fol s om ’ s on- the- s t and corr ect i on of the st at e prosecutorabo ut the ch arges agai nsthim ; the g uards’- 12-

t es t i m onyof thei robs ervat i ons of M r . Fol s om ) . A l l of thi s i s t o s aythat , by v irtue o f th e c o n fli cti n g an d cre d ible ev iden ce o n b o th side s o f th e led g er, M r . Fol s om has fai l ed t o carr yhi s heavybur den of de m ons tr at i ng bycl earand c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in its fa c tu a l fin d in g s a b o u t h is c o m p e te n c y . See i d. ( “[W ] e conc l ude a r at i onal [fa ct fi nder ] coul d have concl uded that[the evi dence ] w ei ghed i n favorof fi ndi ng compet ence . T he d e ter m in a tio n in th e first in sta n c e is fo r [ fa c tfin d e rs,] a n d w e a re n o t f re e to su b sti tute o u r view o f th e e v iden ce . ”) T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is a ff irm e d . M r. F o lso m ’s m o tio n to pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s i s gr ant ed. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge