UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ WILLIAM DANIEL HARDIN, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. SEAN PRUITT,  Warden; PHILIP J. WEISER, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents - Appellees. No. 19-1201 (D.C. No. 1:17- CV-02626-CMA) (D. Colo.)

_________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

_________________________________ Before HOLMES , BALDOCK , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ William Daniel Hardin, a Colorado stat e prisoner proceedi ng pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition fo r a writ of habeas co rpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Exercising jurisdiction pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

 We have substituted the current warden of the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, Sean Pruitt, for the former warden, Terry Jaques, under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 22, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 I. Background Hardin was accused of robbing three men—Victor Irving, Isaac Fisher, and Lloyd Rhodes—and of killing two of them, Irving and Fisher. The crimes occurred at the victims’ drug house in Denver. The State of Colorado charged Hardin with one count of aggravated robbery of all three men, two counts of felony murder, and two counts of after-deliberation murder. In 1988, a jury found him guilty by separate verdict forms of two counts of aggravated robbery (Irving and Rhod es), two counts of felony murder (Irving and Fisher), and tw o counts of after-deliberation murder (Irving and Fisher). The jury acquitted Hardin of aggravated robbery of Fisher. The trial court sentenced Hardin to consecutive terms of imprisonment of sixteen years for each aggravated robb ery conviction and to li fe imprisonment for each felony-murder conviction. The c ourt did not sentence Hardin on the after-deliberation murder convictions. Hardin appealed, and his appeal incl uded a claim that his trial counsel provided constitutionally inef fective assist ance (IAC). See R., Vol. 1 at 164-65. Soon after, he requested and obtained a limited remand to pursue the IAC claim under Colorado Rule of Criminal Proce dure 35(c). The postc onviction proceeding languished until 1997, when the Colorado Court of Appeals (CCA) vacated the limited remand and decided the direct appeal ( Hardin I ). The CCA affirmed the convictions but remanded with instructions that the trial cour t vacate the felony3 murder conviction concerning Irving’s death, 1 enter a judgment of conviction for the count of after-deliberation murder of Irvi ng, and resentence Hardin accordingly. The CCA determined that Hardin’s IAC claim should be resolved in a postconviction proceeding. 2 The Colorado Supreme Court denied review. Hardin filed a pro se Rule 35(c) moti on. The postconviction court summarily denied the motion and did not resentence Hardin in accordan ce with the remand instructions. In 2000, the CCA reversed and remanded with in structions to hold further proceedings on the postconviction clai ms and resentence Ha rdin as previously instructed. After the remand, the postc onviction court appointed another attorney in 2001 to represent Hardin, but the case again languished for y ears until 2012, when a new judge (the third since the se cond remand) took over. Hardin ’s attorney then filed a supplement to the pro se Rule 35(c) motion, see id. at 441-512, whic h we shall refer to as the Rule 35(c) motion. The postconviction court he ld a three-day hearing on the motion and denied it. The CCA affirmed. See id. at 269-90 ( Hardin III ). 3 The Colorado Supreme Court denied review.

1 The CCA ruled that the conviction for aggravated robbery of Irving merged with the conviction for felony murder of Ir ving but did not merge with the conviction for after-deliberation murder of Irving.

2 The CCA also decided a number of issues that are germane to the analysis of some of the IAC subclaims at issue in this appeal. We reserve discussion of those rulings until our analysis.

3 Hardin III is published, see People v. Hardin , 405 P.3d 379 (Colo. App. 2016), but we cite to the record for convenience.4 Hardin then initiated a pro se § 2254 pr oceeding. The district court denied relief and a certificate of appealability (COA). See id. at 546-73. This court granted a COA on Hardin’s IAC claim a nd otherwise denied a COA. In his appellate briefs, Hardin takes issue with the district court’s di sposition of five IA C subclaims labeled as ii(A), ii(B), ii(C), ii(E ), and ii(F). We address th e subclaims in the following order: ii(A), ii(F), ii(B) and ii(C) (togeth er), and ii(E). In so doing, we afford Hardin’s pro se filings a lib eral construction, but we do not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta , 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). II. Discussion A. Subclaim ii(A), failure to object to duplicitous aggravated-robbery charge In subclaim ii(A) of his § 2254 petition, Hardin argue d that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective when he failed to object to the information charging all three aggravated robberies in one count. Th e district court ruled that because Hardin presented this subclaim in his Rule 35(c) motion but not in th e ensuing appeal, the claim was unexhausted, and Hardin could not avail himself of the procedural-default exception carved out in Martinez v. Ryan , 566 U.S. 1 (2012). Martinez provides that in states (like Colorado) wh ere a trial-counsel IAC clai m “must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceed ing, a procedural default w ill not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of in effective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral pr oceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was in effective.” Id. at 17. Under Martinez , a claim is “substantial” if it “has some merit.” Id. at 15. The Martinez exception is limited to ineffective5 assistance of initial postconvict ion counsel; it does not enco mpass “attorney errors in . . . appeals from initial-revi ew collateral proceedings.” Id. at 16. We conclude that the di strict court erred in deeming subclaim ii(A) procedurally defaulted due to failure to exhaust. But we fu rther conclude that subclaim ii(A) fails on the merits. 1. Subclaim ii(A) is no t procedurally defaulted Exhaustion requires “one co mplete round of the State’ s established appellate review process,” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel , 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1 999), and the claim must have “been ‘fairly pres ented’ to the state court,” Bland v. Sirmons , 459 F.3d 999, 1011 (10th Ci r. 2006) (quoting Picard v. Connor , 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971)). The “crucial inquiry” in the fair-presentati on analysis “is whethe r the substance of the petitioner’s claim has been presented to the state courts in a manner sufficient to put the courts on notice of the federal constitutional claim.” Prendergast v. Clements , 699 F.3d 1182, 1184 (10t h Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim can also be exhausted, and theref ore ripe for review under the deferential standards of § 2254(d), if the state a ppellate court considers it sua sponte. Alverson v. Workman , 595 F.3d 1142, 1153 n.3 (10th Cir. 2010). As the fo llowing discussion illustrates, Hardin “fairly pr esented” subclaim ii(A) to both the postconviction court and the CCA, but even if he had not, the CCA actually decided this subclaim as a matter of constitutional law. Hardin advanced subclaim ii(A ) in his Rule 35(c) motion. See R., Vol. 1 at 477-79 (arguing that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to6 duplicitous charge). Alt hough the postconviction court expressly decided two other IAC subclaims concerning what ittermed “[t]ri al [f]ailures,” see id. at 220-21, it did not expressly recognize or decide this subc laim. It did, however, provide a general assessment of Strickland prejudice regarding all of th e “claimed instances” of IAC and concluded that Hardin had not show n there was a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome but for any deficient performance. See id. at 221-23; Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984) ( holding that prejudice for IAC claims requires showing “that there is a reasonable probab ility that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”). In his appeal to the CCA, Hardin nomin ally framed the issue as a matter of state procedural law regard ing the postconviction court’ s failure to provide any findings regarding this subcla im, as required by Colorado Ru le of Criminal Procedure 35(c)(3)(V). See R., Vol. 1 at 243-44, 256. But Hardin also cited Strickland and related IAC caselaw, see id. at 257, and he further explained w hy the postconviction court would have found IAC if ithad considered this subclaim, see id. at 258-60. Hardin argued that, contrary to trial counsel ’s testimony at the Rule 35(c) hearing, the decision not to object was not strategi c because the failure to object (1) exposed Hardin to multiple additiona l charges carrying consecutive sentences, (2) foreclosed jury deadlock if one juro r disagreed that the prosecu tion had proved aggravated robbery of any one of the na med victims, (3) foreclosed outright acquittal if they all disagreed, and (4) foreclosed review on direct appeal. See id. at 259-60.7 The CCA ruled that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by failing to make the specific findings that Rule 35(c)(3)(V) requires. See id. at 281-86. The CCA observed that “the postconviction c ourt made factual findings regarding the lack of prejudice Hardin suffered as a result of any alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” Id. at 284. For that reason, the CCA deferred “to those findings and conclude[d] that Hardin ha[d ] not satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.” Id. The CCA noted that the pos tconviction court had “addressed some allegations [of IAC] generally and the rest speci fically” and had reached the final conclusion that “none of the claimed instances of ineffectiveness would, separately or together, likel y have had any impact on the outcome of this case.” Id. (ellipsis and internal qu otation marks omitted). Next, and significantly for merits purposes here, the CCA refe rred to its earlier ruling on the underlying substa ntive-duplicity claim in Hardin I that Hardin “‘failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting fro m the manner in which the aggravated robberies were charged,’ in part because of the trial court’s uncontested power to allow constructive amendments or variances of a criminal information at any time before the verdict.” Id. at 284-85 (quoting Hardin I , id. at 172). The CCA found “no support in the record for Hard in’s speculative assertions th at the trial court (1) would have likely refused to allow the amendment or variance upon objection or (2) abused its discretion in allowing this amendment orvariance regardless of whether trial counsel made the desired objection.” Id. at 285. The CCA further concluded that the postconviction court had either “implicitly or expressly . . . denied all of Hardin’s8 arguments.” Id. The CCA “therefore determine[ d] that the postconviction court’s findings of fact and conclusi ons of law sufficiently provi ded the basis of its ruling— namely, that Hardin had failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland .” Id. Although the CCA ruled that the lack of sp ecific factual findings did not amount to an abuse of discretion, see id. at 286, it also decided the constitutional IAC issue when it “assum[ed] without deciding that tr ial counsel’s failures to object constituted ineffective assistance,” “d efer[red] to the postconvicti on court’s factual findings,” and “determine[d] that Hardin ha[d] not satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.” Id. Based on the foregoing review, we conc lude that, despite nominally framing the issue as a matter of stat e procedure, Hardin fairly presented a constitutional IAC claim, and in any event, the CCA rendered a decision on that issue when it concluded there was no Strickland prejudice. Therefore, subclaim ii(A) is exhausted, and the Martinez exception to procedural default is irrelevant. 2. Subclaim ii(A) fails on the merits Having established th at subclaim ii(A) is not procedurally defaulted, we turn to its merits. Because the CCA decide d the claim on the me rits, § 2254(d)’s deferential standard of review applies. Under that stan dard, Hardin is entitled to relief on this subclaim only if the CCA’s adjudication of it “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the Un ited States,” § 2254(d)(1), or “was based9 on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evid ence presented in the State court proceeding,” § 2254(d)(2). In his appellate briefs, Hardin has not addressed Strickland prejudice regarding subclaim ii(A), instead focusing on whether Martinez rescues the subclaim from procedural default. And we find no adequa te showing of prejudi ce in his Rule 35(c) or § 2254 filings. In his Rule 35(c) motion, Hardin empha sized that when the CCA considered the underlying duplicity issue in Hardin I , the court repeatedly referred to the fact that at no point in the trial did counsel object to the charge or the trifurcation of the charge in the jury instruc tions or verdict forms. See R., Vol. 1 at 477-78 (discussing id. at 172). Hardin also pointed out the CCA’s conclusion that although the count was duplicitous when charged, the failure to obj ect prior to trial resu lted in waiver of any duplicity objection. See id. at 478 (discussing id. at 172-73). As noted above, in his appeal of the de nial of the Rule 35( c) motion, Hardin set out four reasons why the failure to obj ect was not strategic: it exposed him to multiple additional charges ca rrying consecutive sentences, fo reclosed jury deadlock if one juror disagreed that the prosecution had proved aggravated robbery of any one of the named victims beyond a reasonable doubt, foreclosed outright acquittal if they all disagreed, and foreclosed review on direct appeal. Id. at 259-60. In concluding that Hardin failed to demonstrate Strickland prejudice, the CCA did not address these reasons, which could be cons trued as prejudice arguments. Instead, the CCA focused on a different, and dispositiv e, prejudice consideration— whether an objection would10 have been sustained. See id. at 285. The CCA referred to Hardin I ’s rejection of the substantive duplicitous-count claim on the ground that Hardin failed to show prejudice resulting from the manner the count was charged “because of the trial court’s uncontested power to allow constructiv e amendments or vari ances of criminal information at any time before the verdict.” Id. at 284-85 (discussing Hardin I , id. at 171-72). And the CCA found “no support in the record for Hardin’s speculative assertions that the trial court (1) would ha ve likely refused to allow the amendment or variance upon objection or (2) abused its discretion in allowing this amendment or variance regardless of wh ether trial counsel made the desired objection.” Id. at 285. Hardin never addressed these reasons in his § 2254 filings , arguing only that “had the duplicitous counts been dismissed, ” there was “a reasonable likelihood that he would not have been convict ed of [aggravated] robbery.” Id. at 534. Nor has he addressed those reasons on a ppeal. And he would fare no better even if he had reiterated the four points he raised in his brief to the CCA (and which the CCA did not expressly address), becau se those points are equally speculative—they fall short of showing a reasonable probability that th e outcome of his tria l would have been different had trial counsel raised a duplicity objection. For these reasons, we conclude that the CCA’s decision is entitled to § 2254(d) deference. Accordingly, we affirm th e denial of relief on subclaim ii(A).11 B. Subclaim ii(F), failure to obj ect when the tria l court refused to provide a copy of Rhodes’s testimony upon the jury’s request In subclaim ii(F) of his § 2254 petition, Hardin argue d that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective when he failed to object to th e trial court’s refusal to provide the jury with a copy of the testim ony of the surviving victim, Rhodes. The trial court told the jury it would have to rely on its co llective memory because there were only the stenographer’s notes and no tr anscript had yet been prepared. The district court concluded that because Hardin presented this subclaim in his Rule 35(c) motion but not in the ensui ng appeal, the claim was un exhausted, and therefore Hardin could not avail himself of Martinez

. Hardin disputes the district court’s pro cedural ruling, but we need not sort out the argument. Section 2254(b)(2) provides th at “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwith standing the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.” And in the interest of judicial economy, we may consider unexhausted claims on the merits despite a failure to exhaust. Milton v. Miller , 812 F.3d 1252, 1265 (10th Cir. 2016). We elect to do so with respect to subc laim ii(F). Under these circumstances, our review is de

novo. See Allen v. Mullin , 368 F.3d 1220, 1235 (10th Cir. 2004) (reviewing de novo an unexhausted claim and citing § 2254(b)(2)). On direct appeal, the CCA ruled, albe it on plain-error revi ew of the underlying substantive claim (i.e., not an IAC claim), th at “[n]othing in the record indicates that defendant was prejudiced by the [trial court’ s] response” to the jury’s request, and12 “defense counsel may have ma de the tactical decision not to have the testimony read to avoid possible prejudice to defendant.” R., Vol. 1 at 176. In his § 2254 filings, Hardin offered only a conclusory argumen t that, had the trial court provided the requested transcript, the jury would not have convicted him of at least “the aggravated robbery charge (and in turn the felony murder charges as well).” Id. at 537. And even in his Rule 35(c) moti on, Hardin (through co unsel) merely pointed out that one main issue for the jury wa s whether to believe Rhodes’s testimony (which the jury could not review) or Hard in’s videotaped statement to the police (which the jury could review), and he sugge sted that “a comparis on of the statements would have been of assi stance to the jury.” Id. at 480. 4 In other words, at no point has Hardin ever attempted to explain w hy there is a reasona ble probability of a

4 In its order denying the Rule 35(c ) motion, the postconviction court addressed Hardin’s version of events , which apparently was drawn from his videotaped statement (he did not testify at trial): “He admits he was there [at the victims’ drug house], visiting his friends. He claims th at Irving and Fisher began fighting and that as they struggled for a gun Irving shot Fisher. He claims that he then tried to wrestle the gun from Irving and the gun ‘went off.’” R., Vol. 1 at 221-22. The court then pointed out how Hardin’s self-defense theory conflicted with a raft of evidence, includi ng that there was a total of six shots: “Fisher was shot once in the neck, Irving twice in the back,” a “fourth shot struck a wall near where Rhodes testified he had run,” a fifth shot “was found in a hall where Rhodes said he ran, and the sixth on the floor of a stairwell leading from that hall.” Id. at 222. There also was testimony from a woman who he ard gunshots and “saw a tall black man [Hardin, apparently] running after a shor ter stockier man she was later able to identify as Rhodes.” Id. Other witnesses h eard Rhodes “yell for help and ask for people to call the police.” Id. The postconviction court c onsidered Hardin’s theory “not even really a self-defen se theory, but rather a theory of serial accidents,” and observed that “[n]o defense wi tness, nor defense counsel in closings, could explain why [Hardin] would be chasi ng Rhodes after this series of accidents, or why Rhodes, and not [Hardin], would be calling for help and asking bystanders to call the police.” Id.13 different outcome if trial c ounsel had objected to the tria l court’s ruling on the jury’s request. That would require showing a reasonable probability that (1) the trial court would have sustained the objection and provided the jury with a tr anscript and (2) the verdict on any of the counts would have been different. In view of this failure, we affirm the denial of re lief on subclaim ii(F). C. Subclaims ii(B) and ii(C), failure to object to sentences because of acquittal on aggravated robbery as to one of the three victims (Fisher) In subclaims ii(B) and ii(C) of his § 2254 petition, Hardin summarily argued that trial counsel was constitu tionally ineffective when he failed to object to (1) the sentence for felony murder because the jury acquitted him of the underlying felony (aggravated robbery), and (2) the sentences for aggravated robber y because the jury acquitted him of aggravated robbery. See R., Vol. 1 at 89-90. In his traverse, Hardin framed the issue a bit differently. He argue d that there was insu fficient evidence to convict him on the aggravated robbery count and that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the sufficiency of the evidence on that count. Id. at 535. He appears to have incorporated by reference part of his argument on subclaim ii(A)— that aggravated robbery in Colorado require s proof that the victim had the ability to exercise control over the object of the robbe ry, and the jury was never instructed to that effect, see id. at 533-34. Hardin opined that if counsel had objected, there is a reasonable probability that the aggravated robbery count would ha ve been dismissed14 “along with the felony murder counts.” Id. at 536. 5 This opinion appears to rest on his view that either (1) charging three counts of aggrav ated robbery in one count was duplicitous, and trial counsel should have objected on that ground; or (2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain the three aggravat ed robbery counts after the constructive amendment of the info rmation (as the CCA had ruled in Hardin I ), and trial counsel should have objected to trifurcation of that count. See id. at 535-36. Observing that these two subclaims were not raised in the Rule 35(c) motion, see id. at 568, the district court concluded that Martinez did not excuse the procedural default, see id. at 569-71. The court concl uded that subclaim ii(B)’s premise—that Hardin should not have been sentenced for felony murder of Fisher because the jury acquitted him of aggravat ed robbery of Fisher—was flawed given Hardin I ’s explanation that the ju ry found Hardin guilty of felony murder of Fisher because that murder “‘occu rred during the course of th e robbery of the other two [victims].’” Id. at 570 (quoting Hardin I , id. at 168). Because the underlying issue

5 Hardin also stated that at the Rule 35(c) hearing, trial counsel testified that he did not object to trifurcation of the origin al count because he planned to move for dismissal of the counts due to insuffi cient evidence, but he never did. See R., Vol. 1 at 535. He repeats this argument on appeal. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 3(n). In support, he points to four pages of tria l counsel’s testimony (66-68 and 104), but nothing in those pages (or elsewhere in th e transcript) suggests that counsel planned to seek dismissal of the aggravated r obbery counts for any reason, let alone the reason Hardin ascribes to hi m. Instead, trial counsel sa id the counts did not matter much because (1) Hardin was facing two life sentences for the murders, and the jury would either find Hardin guilty of all c ounts or none; and (2) he wanted as many charges as possible so the ju ry would perceive Hardin to be a “monster,” an image that trial counsel planned to debunk on cross-examination. See Transcript of Rule 35(c) Hearing at 66-68, 104, People v. Hardin , No. 87CR1542 (Sept. 13, 2013).15 lacked merit, the district court concluded that subclaim ii(B) itself failed, and therefore Martinez did not excuse the procedural default. Id. (citing Lafler v. Cooper , 566 U.S. 156, 167 (2012), for the princi ple that an IAC claim fails if its underlying premise lacks merit). The district court construe d subclaim ii(C), failure to object to the sentences for aggravated robbery becau se Hardin was acquitted of aggravated robbery, as referring to the acquittal of th e aggravated robbery charge as to Fisher and the fact that Hardin was originally charged with onl y one count of aggravated robbery of all three victims. R., Vol. 1 at 571. The cour t concluded that the subclaim lacked merit because in Hardin I , the CCA held that there was either a constructive amendment to or a variance from the original aggravated robbery count (resulti ng in three separate counts), and Hardin had not shown prejudice from the manner in which the robberies were charged. Id. Accordingly, the district court concluded that subclaim ii(C) was not substantial under Martinez , postconviction counsel di d not render ineffective assistance by failing to raise it, and the subclaim was pr ocedurally defaulted. Id. On appeal, Hardin posits that trial couns el was ineffective in failing to seek dismissal of the aggravated-robbery and felony-murder charges because of the alleged instructional error and evidentia ry insufficiency. But he provides only conclusions that the evidence was insufficient and the jury improperly instructed; he does not discuss the evidence or cite any por tion of the state-court record. And it is clear that the IAC claim is not substantial for Martinez purposes, because in Hardin I , the CCA upheld as a matter of state law the constructive amendment or variance of16 the aggravated robbery count, see R., Vol. 1 at 171-72, and we defer to that conclusion on habeas review, see Heard v. Addison , 728 F.3d 1170, 1175 (10th Cir. 2013) (explaining that defere nce owed to state-court in terpretations of state law “applies with equal force to interpretations of state law ‘announ ced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction’” (quoting Bradshaw v. Richey , 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling that subclaims ii(B) and ii(C) are procedurally defaulted and that Martinez does not excuse the default. D. Subclaim ii(E), failure to object to “acquittal firs t” instruction In subclaim ii(E) of his § 2254 petition, Hardin argue d that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective when he failed to object to the trial court’s “acquittal first” instruction. The instruction provided: “If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilt y of Murder in the First Degree (after deliberation), he may, however, be found gu ilty of any lesser offense . . . [.]” Id. at 156. 6 Hardin raised the propriety of the in struction on direct appeal, arguing that it precluded the jury from even considering th e lesser-included offenses until it had acquitted him of the greater offenses, there by interfering with the jury’s ability to fully consider the lesser -included offenses. In Hardin I , the CCA rejected Hardin’s claim because in People v. Padilla , 638 P.2d 15 (Colo. 1981) (en banc), the Colorado Supreme Court had rejected the same argument. R., Vol. 1 at 175.

6 We derive this quote from Hardin’s dire ct appeal brief because we are unable to locate the jury instructions in either the state-court or district-court record, and there is no dispute regarding wh at the instruction provided.17 Hardin did not raise subclaim ii(E) in his Rule 35(c) motion, and the district court ruled that it was procedurally defaul ted. The court reasoned that because the underlying issue was resolved on direct appeal based on Padilla , “trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to an instruction that was consistent with controlling state precedent,” postconviction c ounsel was not ineffect ive for failing to raise an IAC claim based on the failure to object, the subclaim was not substantial under Martinez , and the claim was pro cedurally defaulted. On appeal, Hardin argues that the pr ocedural default should be excused because subclaim ii(E) is substantia l. He argues that both the CCA (in Hardin I ) and the district court erred in relying on Padilla for the proposition that the acquittal-first instruction is permissible under Colorado law. He notes that, as explained in a more recent case, People v. Richardson , 184 P.3d 755, 764 n.7 (C olo. 2008) (en banc), Colorado is a “soft transition” state, meaning that it does notrequire a jury to acquit a defendant of a greater charge before c onsidering a lesser-inc luded charge. He contends that Richardson controls, not Padilla , and that the instruction in his case was a “hard transition” instru ction. He also relies on Beck v. Alabama , 447 U.S. 625 (1980), arguing that Beckprovides the controlling rule, and trial counsel should have been aware of Beckand lodged an objection to the ac quittal-first instruction based on Beck

. Hardin’s argument wholly lacks merit. Take first Richardson . There the Colorado Supreme Court noted that Colo rado “follows the ‘soft transition’ approach.” 184 P.3d at 764 n.7. But the court cited Padilla among the cases18 supporting this observation, characterizing Padilla as “noting that the particular jury instruction in question was proper because, inter alia , it could not be ‘read to require a unanimous decision on the greater offense before consideration of the lesser.’” Id. (quoting Padilla , 638 P.2d at 18). Clearly then, Padilla did not approve a “hard transition” instruction in a soft-transition state because th e instruction did not require unanimous acquittal. Theref ore, trial counsel’s failure to object to the same instruction in Hardin’s ca se was not constitutionally deficient performance and did not result in Strickland prejudice. Next, Beck is not on point. In Beck , the Supreme Court considered a state statute that prohibited a judge from giving a jury the option of convicting a defendant of felony murder, which is a lesser-incl uded offense of the capital crime of robbery-intentional killing. 447 U.S. at 628- 29. The Court concluded that the death penalty may not “constitutionally be imposed after a jury verdict of guilt of a capital offense, when the jury was not permittedto consider a verdic t of guilt of a lesser included non-capital offense, and when the evidence w ould have supported such a verdict.” Id. at 628 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Unlike the jury in Beck , Hardin’s jury was perm itted to consider lesser -included offenses, and under Padilla , the instruction did not “deprive [Har din] of a right to trial by jury,” 638 P.2d at 18. 7

7 Hardin also contends that in her dissent ing opinion in Blueford v. Arkansas , 566 U.S. 599 (2012), Justice Sotomayor cited Beck when discussing “the fact that when a ‘soft’ transition state tenders a ‘har d’ transition instruction, the defendant’s due process rights are violated in turn requ iring reversal of his/ her conviction(s).”19 In sum, Hardin has not established that subclaim ii(E) is s ubstantial, so we affirm the district court’s ruling th at it is procedurally defaulted. III. Conclusion The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge

Aplt. Opening Br. at 3(o) (citing Blueford , 566 U.S. at 612 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting)). Hardin’s contention is unfoun ded. There is no statement in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, oranywhere else in Blueford , regarding a due process violation when a soft-transition state tenders a hard-transition inst ruction (double jeopardy was at issue in Blueford ). And Beck is not cited anywhere in Blueford

.