T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol 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 th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

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

### D e c e m b e r8,2006 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 CU RTI S R. FOO TE, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. RO N WARD, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 6228 ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 5 - 5 1 1 - L) (W .D . O k la .)

OR DER DENY I NG A CERTI FI CATE OF APPE ALABI LI TY * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

C urt i s R and al l F oo t e, a st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, request s a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y( “C O A ”) t o appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s pet i t i on. Fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons s etfor th byt he di s t r i ctcour t , w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS th e a p p e a l. F oo t e pled no con t estt o fir stdeg ree burgl ary , i nti m i dati on of a w i tness, t w o count s of dom es t i c abus e as s aul tand batt ery , and thr eat eni ng an ac tofB eca us e the di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed Foot e a CO A , he maynotappea l t he 1 d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n a b s e n ta g r a n to f COA b yt h i s c o u r t . 2 8 U. S . C. § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . A C O A m aybe i s s ued “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a su b sta n tial sh o w in g o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t.” § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is r equi r es Foot e t o s how “thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , fort hat m at t er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anneror t hatt he 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 t her . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). - 2 - v io len c e in O k lah o m a sta te d istric t c o u rt. A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , V a ler ie E as l eyand hert w o daught er s t es t i fi ed thatFoot e ent er ed thei rhom e on J ul y8, 2002, and demanded thatone of the daught er s w r i t e a l et t err eca nt i ng her al l egat i on t hatFoot e mol es t ed her . T heyfur thert es t i fi ed thatw hen the daught er r efus ed, Foot e pus hed Easl eyagai ns ta w al l , punched he r , and thr eat ened a l l of t h e m. Seeki ng t o w i t hdr aw hi s pl ea, Foot e appe al ed hi s convi ct i ons t o the O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( “O C C A ”) . T he O C C A deni ed hi s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw , r ever s ed hi s convi ct i on fort hr eat eni ng an ac tof vi ol ence , and a ffirm e d h is o th e r c o n v ictio n s. A d d iti o n a lly , the O C C A re m a n d e d to th e sta te di s t r i ctcour tw i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o ent eran O r derN unc Pr o T unc t o corr ectan err oneous not at i on i n Foot e’ s J udgm entand Sent ence i ndi cat i ng he w as convi ct ed of a pr i orfel ony . Foot e fi l ed a § 2254 pe t i t i on i n fede r al di s tr i ctcourt , w hi ch w as deni ed. H e now s eeks a C O A fr om t hi s courtt o appea l t hatdeci s i on. 1A lth o u g h F o o te c lea rlya ss e rte d th is c laim in th e d istric t co u rt, i t is 2 uncl earw hetherhe pur s ues i ton appea l . B eca us e w e cons true pr o s e pl eadi ngs l i ber al l y , H al l v. B el l m on, 935 F. 2d 1106, 1110 ( 10th C i r . 1991) , w e w i l l cons i der i ther e. - 3 - Foot e adva nces fi ve cl ai m s on appea l : ( 1) H e di d notor al l ypl ead no c o n tes t; (2 ) H e w a s in c o rre c tly se n ten c e d a s a n h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r; (3 ) H is 2 co n v ict ion s fo r i n ti m idation o f a w itn ess a n d d o m esti c a b u se a ssau ltan d b att ery c o n stitu te d o u b le je o p a rd y ; (4 ) T h e re c o rd w a s in su fficie n t to su p p o rt h is convi ct i on fori nt i m i dat i on of a w i tnes s ; and ( 5) H e w as deni ed effec t i ve a ss ista n c e o f

trial c o u n se l. B e c a u se th e se iss u e s h a v e a lre a d yb e e n a dju d ica ted in s t at e court , Foot e musts how t hatt he O C C A deci s i on deny i ng hi m r el i ef w as “contr aryt o, ori 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“bas ed o n a n u n re a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f th e fa c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted in the S tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing ” in o rde r t o p rev ail . 2 8 U . S . C . § § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 )-( 2 ). A va l i d p l e a mus tbe kn owi ng a nd vo l un t a ry . Se e Pa r ke v. Ral e y , 50 6 U. S. 20, 28 ( 1992) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l though Foot e di d nots t at e “I pl ead no c o n tes t,” th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g tra n sc rip t lea v e s n o d o u b t th a t h is p lea m e t th is s t andar d. T he courtas ked w hethert he i nform at i on cont ai ned i n hi s pl ea of no cont es tw as t rue and c or r ect . Foot e r es ponded affi r m at i vel y . M or eover , t heFoot e cl ai m s t hathi s fai l ur e t o or al l ypl ead de pr i ved the tr i al courtof 3 j ur i s di ct i on, butci t es no author i tyfort hi s pr opos i t i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e do not cons i dert hi s a gr ound forr el i ef. See A m er i can A i r l i nes v. C hr i s t ens en, 967 F. 2d 410, 415 n. 8 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( “I ti s i ns uffi ci entm er el yt o s t at e i n one’ s br i ef that one i s appea l i ng an adve r s e rul i ng bel ow w i thoutadvanc i ng r eas oned ar gum entas to the g rou n d s fo r th e a p p ea l. ”). - 4 - w ri tte n S u m m a ry o f

F a c ts fo rm s ig n e d b yF o o te c le a rl ya d v is e d h im o f h is ri g h ts . T he O C C A ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatFoot e’ s pl ea w as val i d w as notunr eas onabl e. 3 O n Foot e’ s or i gi nal J udgm entand Sent ence form , t he box adj ace ntt o the fo l l o wi n g s t a t e me n twa s c h e c k e d : “ T h e Co u r tfi n d s t h a tt h e d e fe n d a n th a s ONE (1 ) p rio r fe lo n yc o n v ictio n (s) C lev e lan d C o u n tyC a se , C F -2 0 0 2 -1 2 8 a n d th is s ent ence has been e nhance d . . . . ” T h e O C C A n o ted th a t th is d e sc rip tio n w a s in e r r o ra n d r e ma n d e d wi t h i n s t ru c t i o n s t o c o rr e c ti t . Ho we v e r , a s t h e OCCA poi nt ed out , Foot e w as noti n fac ts ent ence d as a r epea toffe nder . A ts ent enci ng, t he tr i al cour ts t at ed s o expl i ci t l y , r ender i ng thi s cl ai m m oot . See Spence rv. K emm a, 523 U . S. 1, 7 ( 1998) ( “[T] he pl ai nt i ff musthave s uffe r ed, orbe t hr eat ened w i t h, an ac tual i nj ur ytr ace abl e t o the defendantand l i kel yt o be red resse d b ya fav o rab le j u d ici al de cisi o n . ”) (q u o tat ion o m itted). I n a h a b e a s p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g mu l t i p l e p u n i s h me n td o u b l e j e o p a r d y , we r evi ew onl yt o det erm i ne w hethert he tr i al courti m pos ed a s ent ence gr eat ert han t he l egi s l atur e i nt ended. M i s s our i v. H unt er , 459 U . S. 359, 368 ( 1983) . W e i nfer t hatt he l egi s l atur e i nt ended t o puni s h conductas di s t i nctoffe ns es w hen “a di ffe r ence exi s t s i n t he pr oof of fact s r equi r ed t o pr ove” e ach offens e. D enni s v.- 5 -

Poppel , 222 F. 3d 1245, 1252 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . T he el ement s of i nt i m i dat i ng a w i t nes s ar e: “Fi r s t , w i l l ful l y ; Second, caus i ng/thr eat eni ng/pr ocur i ng/har as s i ng; T hi r d, phy s i cal / m ent al harm ; Four th, thr ough for ce/ fea r ; Fi fth, t o a per s on; Si xt h, [w ith the in tent to m ak e the p erso n alt er h is t esti m o n y ]. ” O k la. U n ifo rm Ju ry I ns t ruct i ons , C r i m . 2d, § 3- 39. T he el ement s of dom es t i c abus e as s aul tand batt eryare: “F i rs t , w i l l ful; S econ d, un l aw ful; T hir d, at t em pti ng or offeri ng t o u se for ce orvi ol ence ; and Four t h, t he us e of for ce orvi ol ence ; Fi fth, agai ns tthe person o f [S pecifyA pp l i cable R el at i on shi p]. ” O kla. U nifor m JuryInstruct i on s, C rim . 2 d , § 4 -2 6 A . B e c a u se e a c h o ffe n se re q u ire s a t lea st o n e d istin c t ele m e n t to be pr oved, t he O C C A ’ s r ej ect i on of Foot e’ s doubl e j eopar dycl ai m w as not unr eas onabl e. Foot e cl ai m s t hathi s convi ct i on fori nt i m i dat i ng a w i tnes s s houl d be v a c a te d b e c a u s e th e re c o rd la c k e d a fa c tu a l b a s is to s u p p o rt h is p le a o f n o c o n te s t. G ener al l y , t he U . S. C ons t i tut i on does notr equi r e a factual bas i s t o s uppor ta pl ea, m aki ng s uch cl ai m s non- cogni zabl e i n a habe as pet i t i on. Fr eeman v. Page, 443 F. 2d 493, 497 ( 10t h C i r . 1971) . H ow ever , “pl eas coupl ed w i th cl ai m s of i nnocenc e s houl d notbe ac cept ed unl es s ther e i s a fa ctual bas i s forthe pl ea. ” N or t h C ar ol i na v. A l for d, 400 U . S. 25, 38 n. 10 ( 1970) . Foot e corr ect l ynot es that hi s pl ea di d notcont ai n an admi s s i on of anyfac t s , butr atherhi s under s t andi ng of t he evi dence t he s t at e w oul d i nt r oduce at tr i al . N everthel es s , Foot e does not- 6 -

cl ai m i nnocenc e anyw her e i n t he pl ea a nd acc or di ngl ydoes notr ece i ve the adde d pr ot ect i on of A l for d. T he O C C A ’ s deni al of thi s cl ai m w as notunr eas onabl e. T o succe ed o n an i neffect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel cl ai m , a peti t i on er m ust sat i sfyt w o elem ents : Fi r s t , t he defendantm us ts how thatcouns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent . T hi s r equi r es s how i ng t hatcouns el m ade e rr or s s o s er i ous t hatcouns el w as notfunct i oni ng as the “c ouns el ” guar ant eed the defe nd ant byt he S i xth A m end m ent. S econ d, the d efen dan tm ust sh o w th a t th e d e ficie n t p e rfo rm a n c e p reju d ice d th e d e fe n se . T h is r equi r es s how i ng t hatcouns el ’ s err or s w er e s o s er i ous as t o depr i ve t he defendantof a fai rt r i al , a tr i al w hos e r es ul ti s r el i abl e. S trick lan d v . W a sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ). F o o te a lleg e s th a t h is c o u n se l fa iled to in v e stig a te h is c laim th a t h e a n d E a sle yw e re m a rrie d . E v e n if tru e , th is fa c t w o u ld h a v e n o re le v a n c e to th e c h a rg e s o n w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d . H e al s o cl ai m s t hatcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e the i s s ues he pr es ent l ypur s ues c o n stitu ted in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e . A s n o ted a b o v e , ea c h o f th e se c laim s is w ith o u t m e ri t, th e re fo re c o u n s e l’ s fa ilu re to ra is e th e m d id n o t p reju d ic e F o o te . T he O C C A ’ s deni al of thi s cl ai m w as al s o notunr eas onabl e. F i n a l l y , F o o t e mo v e s t o p r o c e e d i n fo r ma p a u p e r i s . Al th o u g h h i s c l a i ms w e re u lti m a telyw ith o u t m e rit, th e yw e re n o t so f riv o lo u s o r u n re a so n e d a s to i m pl ybad fa i t h. See 28 U . S. C . §§ 1915( a) ( 1) & ( a) ( 3) . A ccor di ngl yw e GRANT his m oti on t o p roceed in form a pau peri s. F or the reasons setforth ab ov e, F oo t e’s requestfor a C O A i s DE NI ED and- 7 -

his app eal i s DI S M I S S ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge