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 . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### Ju n e6,2006 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 M A RC U S CL EM O N S,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. D A V I D M C K U N E , W ar den, L a n s i n g C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y; C A R L A J . ST O V A L L , A t t or ney G eneral of K ansas,

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 3123 ( D. C. No . 0 3 - CV- 3 2 1 7 - RDR)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

M ar cus C l emons w as convi ct ed byt he St at e of K ans as of pr emedi t at ed fi r s t - degr ee mur der , at t empt ed fi r s t - degr ee mur der , and cr i m i nal pos s es s i on of a fi r e a r m. He a p p e a l e d t h e c o n v i c t i o n s u n s u c c e s s f u l l yt o t h e Ka n s a s S u p r e me- 2-

C our tand then fi l ed a feder al habea s pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254, w hi ch t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed. W e gr ant ed a c er t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yt o cons i der w hether( 1) t he defendant ’ s w ai verof a j ur yt r i al w as know i ng, vol unt ary , and i nt el l i gent ; and ( 2) t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence of pr emedi t at i on t o s uppor tt he g u ilty v e rd ic ts o f

fir s t- d e g re e m u rd e r a n d fir s t- d e g re e a tte m p te d m u rd e r. Ex e r c i s i n g o u rj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3 ( a ) , we a ffi r m. Backg r ound T he under l y i ng fac t s of C l emons’ s cas e ar e di s cus s ed atl ength i n t he K a n s a s S u p re m e C o u rt ’s d e c is io n a ffir m in g h is c o n v ic tio n s . See Stat e v. C l em ons , 45 P. 3d 384 ( K an. 2002) . W e r ehea r s e them her e onl yi ns ofaras nece s s aryt o expl ai n ourr es ol ut i on on appea l . O n t he morni ng of J une 29, 1999, C l emons and hi s fr i end, T onyD avi s , goti nt o an ar gum entw i t h Sat i n H uffman a n d A rt h u r M c P h e rs o n a s th e fo u r w a lk e d to a s m o k e s h o p in W ic h ita , K a n s a s . T her e w as i ni t i al l yt al k of a f i s tfi ght , butt he ar gum entqui ckl yes cal at ed and ended w i t h C l emons s hoot i ng H uffman and M cPher s on. A l t hough he s hot H uffman atcl os e r ange i n t he hea d and l eg, H uffman survi ved. M cPher s on, h o w e v e r, d ie d f

ro m a g u n s h o t w o u n d in h is b a c k . C l emons’ s t r i al w as s etforA ugus t7, 2000. O n J ul y14, 2000, C l emons i nform ed the j udge thathe w as unhappyw i t h hi s cour t - appoi nt ed att or neyand w i s h e d t o h a v e a n o t h e ra t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d . I f h e c o u l d n o th a v e a n o t h e ra t t o r n e y, C lem o n s said that h e w an ted to rep rese n t him self. T h e jud g e d en ied C lem o n s’s- 3-

re q u e st fo r n e w c o u n se l, an d th e iss u e o f se lf-re p re se n tatio n w a s h e ld o v e r u n til J ul y21, 2000. O n t hatdat e, t he j udge expl ai ned atl ength t he pi t fal l s of s el f- r epr es ent at i on and advi s ed C l emons aga i ns tr epr es ent i ng hi m s el f. T he j udge s peci fi cal l yw arned C l emons aboutt he di ffi cul t yt hathe w oul d have pr epar i ng for t r i al w hi l e i n cus t ody . T he j udge advi s ed C l emons thathe coul d have c ouns el a p p o in ted a t an ytim e , b u t th a t h a v in g c o u n se l b ro u g h t b a c k in to th e c a se a t a lat er d ate w o u ld n o t be g rou n d s fo r a c o n ti n u an ce . A fter li sten ing to the jud g e’s w arni ngs , C l emons m ai nt ai ned thathe w i s hed t o r epr es enthi m s el f, and the j udge c o n c lu d e d th a t C lem o n s h a d k n o w in g lya n d in tellig e n tlyw a iv e d h is rig h t to c o u n s e l. O n A ugus t7, 2000, t he dayhi s t r i al w as s ett o begi n, C l emons i nform ed the cour tt hathe w i s hed t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al . I ti s cl earfr om t he t r ans cr i ptof the pr ocee di ng t hathe di d s o beca us e he be l i eved thatr emovi ng t he cas e fr om t he j ur yt r i al cal endarw oul d y i el d a cont i nuance . A ft ergett i ng an as s ur ance fr om C l emons thathe w i s hed t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o a j ur y , t he j udge s et t he ca s e fora benc h t r i al t hr ee w eeks l at er . W hen the dayof hi s bench tr i al arr i ved, C l emons i nform ed the courtt hathe w oul d notbe r epr es ent i ng hi m s el f, and thathi s cour t - appoi nt ed att or neyw oul d t r yt he ca s e. H i s at t or neyr eques t ed a c o n tin u a n c e , w h ich w a s d e n ied . L a ter th a t d a y , the ju d g e fo u n d C lem o n s g u ilty o n a ll c o u n ts .- 4- D i s cus s i on Standar d of

R evi ew [A ] fede r al cour tm aynotgr anthabea s r el i ef on a cl ai m adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s i n s t at e courtunl es s t he s t at e courtdeci s i on w as c o n tra ryto , o r in v o lv e d a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f, cle a rly es 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 , orw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g . Young v. Workm an , 3 8 3 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 3 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (qu o tat ion s o m itted); s ee 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) . C l emons’ s pet i t i on i nvokes bot h s ub- s ect i ons ( 1) and (2 ) o f § 2 2 5 4 (d ). H e a rg u e s th a t th e trial ju d g e im p e rm iss ib lyfo rc e d h im to w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al i n vi ol at i on of cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw and t hathi s convi ct i ons forfi r s t - degr ee pr emedi t at ed murde rand att empt ed murde r w er e 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. Jur y Tr i alWai ver C l emons’ s Si xt h A m endmentar gum enti s t w o- fol d. Fi r s t , he cl ai m s t hat th e sta te c o u rt im p e rm iss ib lyre q u ire d h im to g iv e u p h is rig h t to a ju rytrial in e x c h a n g e fo r a c o n tin u a n c e . S in c e h e n e e d e d th e c o n tin u a n c e in o rd e r to e ffe c tu a te h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to re p re se n t h im se lf, h e a rg u e s th a t th e sta te c o u rt e ffe c tiv e lyfo rc e d h im to c h o o se b e tw e e n tw o c o n stitu tio n a l g u a ra n tee s in vi ol at i on of Si m m ons v. Uni t ed Stat es , 390 U . S. 377, 394 ( 1968) . W e ar e not p e rsu a d e d . W h e th e r C lem o n s w a s fo rc e d to c h o o se b e tw e e n h is rig h t toO n t hi s poi nt , w e not e thati ti s uncl earfr om t he r ecor d w hetherC l emons 1 actual l yr eques t ed a c ont i nuance befor e r el i nqui s hi ng hi s r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al . T he t r ans cr i ptr efl ect s onl yt hatC l emons i nform ed the courtt hathe w i s hed t o w ai ve a ju rytrial a n d a d m itt e d th a t h e w a s d o in g so b e c a u se h e n e e d e d m o re tim e to pr epar e. T her e i s not hi ng t o i ndi cat e thata form al r eques tfora cont i nuance w as ei t herr eques t ed ordeni ed.

- 5- self-rep rese n tat ion an d h is r igh t t o a jurytr ial turn s o n w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt ’s d en ial o f the co n ti n u an ce w as p rop er. S e e B a rh a m v . P o w e ll , 895 F. 2d 19, 21 1 ( 1s tC i r . 1990) . “I f . . . t he courtw as w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he cont i nuance , t he fa ctt hatl ack of pr epar at i on t i m e ‘ for ced’ [C l emons] t o s eek couns el does notm ake hi s w ai veri nvol unt aryforcons t i tut i onal purpos es . ” Id. at22. W e have hel d t hat“w hen a de ni al of a c ont i nuance form s a bas i s of a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus , notonl ym us tt her e have been a n abus e of d isc re tio n , b u t itm u st h a v e b e e n so a rb itrar ya n d f u n d a m e n tallyu n fa ir th a t it vi ol at es cons t i tut i onal pr i nci pl es of due pr oces s . ” C as e v. Mondr agon , 887 F. 2d 1 3 8 8 , 1 3 9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). “T h e re a re n o m e c h a n ica l tes ts fordeci di ng w hen a de ni al of a c ont i nuance i s s o arbi t r aryas t o vi ol at e due pr oces s . ” Id . at1397 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . W e foc us on t he defendant ’ s “nee d for a c o n tin u a n c e a n d th e p reju d ice o r la c k o f p reju d ice re su lti n g f

ro m its d e n ial, in t he cont extof a f

undament al fai r nes s eval uat i on. ” Id. B as ed on the r ecor d, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatt he s t at e court ’ s deni al of a c o n t i n u a n c e o n t h e d a ys e tfo rt r i a l wa s f u n d a me n t a l l yu n fa i ri n t h i s c a s e . T wo- 6-

w eeks ear l i er , t he j udge s peci fi cal l yw arned C l emons aboutt he per i l s of pr ocee di ng pr o s e – i n par t i cul arhow di ffi cul ti tw oul d be t o pr epar e fort r i al w h ile in c a rc e ra ted . H e fo u n d th a t C lem o n s h a d fa iled to p re se n t ad e q u a te gr ounds fort he appoi nt m entof new couns el and ca ut i oned C l emons aga i ns tfi r i ng hi s cour t - appoi nt ed att or ney , w ho had r epr es ent ed thathe ant i ci pat ed bei ng r eady on t he s chedul ed tr i al dat e. O n t hes e fa ct s , w e conc l ude thatt he j udge’ s deni al of a cont i nuance w as nots o arbi t r aryand funda m ent al l yunfai ras t o vi ol at e due pr oces s . T her e i s no cons t i tut i onal i m pedi m entt o a defendantbar gai ni ng aw ay h is ri g h t to a ju ry tria l in e x c h a n g e fo r s o m e th in g o f v a lu e o th e rw is e u n a v a ila b le . McMahon v. Hodges , 382 F. 3d 284, 291 ( 2d C i r . 2004) . Si nce Cl emons w as not ent i t l ed t o t he cont i nuance , t he j udge’ s condi t i oni ng of the cont i nuance on t he j ur yt r i al w ai verw as nei t hercontr aryt o noran unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. Second, C l emons ar gues t hatt he s t at e courtvi ol at ed hi s Si xt h A m endment r i ght s byacc ept i ng a j ur yt r i al w ai vert hatw as notknow i ng, i nt el l i gent , and vol unt ary . T he Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned thata w ai veri s “know i ng, i nt el l i gent , and s uffi ci ent l yaw ar e i f the defendantful l yunder s t ands t he natur e of t h e r i g h ta n d h o w i tw o u l d l i k e l y a p p l y i n gener ali n t he ci r cumst ance s - even t hough t he defendantm aynotknow t he s peci f i c detai l ed cons equenc es of i nvoki ng i t . ” Un itedS ta tes v . R u iz , 536 U . S. 622, 629- 30 ( 2002) . E ven i f a cr i m i nal defe ndant“l ack[ s ] a ful l and compl et e appr eci at i on of al l of the- 7-

cons equenc es fl ow i ng fr om hi s [Si xt h A m endment ] w ai ver , i tdoes notdefe att he St at e’ s s how i ng t hatt he i nform at i on pr ovi ded t o hi m s at i s fi ed the cons t i tut i onal m i ni m um . ” P a tterso n v . Ill in o is , 4 8 7 U .S . 2 8 5 , 2 9 4 (1 9 8 8 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). W hetherornotC l emons’ s w ai vers at i s fi ed the cons t i tut i onal m i ni m um d e p e n d s o n th e u n iq u e fa c ts o f h is c a s e . A dam s v. Uni t ed Stat es ex r el . McC ann , 3 1 7 U . S . 2 6 9 , 2 7 8 (19 4 2 ). W e c o n clud e tha t i t did. B efo re a cc ep ti n g the w aive r, th e ju d g e sp e c ifica llya sk e d C lem o n s w h e th e r h e h a d d isc u ss e d h is d e c isio n to w ai ve a j ur yt r i al w i t h hi s cour t - appoi nt ed att or ney . C l emons r es ponded thathe h a d . C lem o n s a lso a ss u re d th e ju d g e th a t n o o n e h a d th re a ten e d h im o r m a d e h im anypr om i s es i n or dert o s ecur e the w ai ver . M or eover , t her e i s not hi ng i n t he re c o rd to in d ica te – a n d C lem o n s te lli n g lyd o e s n o t ar g u e – th a t h e fa iled to u n d e r s t a n d h o w t h e r i g h tt o a j u r y w o u l d “ a p p l y i n gener ali n t he ci r cumst ance s . ” R u iz , 5 3 6 U . S . at 62 9 . T h at he m ayn o t hav e u n d erstoo d the p arti cu lars of a jury t r i al and al l of the cons equenc es fl ow i ng fr om hi s w ai verdoes notdefe att he s t at e’ s s how i ng i n t hi s cas e thatt he i nform at i on i tpr ovi ded t o C l emons pas s ed c o n s titu tio n a l m u s te r. See Pat t ers on , 487 U . S. at294. W e ther efor e conc l ude t hatt he s t at e’ s acc ept ance of hi s w ai verw as cons i s t entw i t h cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe d e r a l l a w. Suf f i ci ency of

the Evi dence C l emons nextchal l enges t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof hi s convi ct i ons for fi r s t - degr ee mur derand att empt ed fi r s t - degr ee mur derar gui ng t hatt her e w as- 8-

i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o pr ove the es s ent i al el ementof pr emedi t at i on. T he Supr eme C our thas hel d t hata 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on chal l engi ng t he su ffici en cyo f e v iden ce m u st be g ran ted “ if i t i s fo u n d that u p o n the re co rd evi dence adduce d att he tr i al no r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have found pr oof of gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” J a c kso n v . Virg in ia , 4 4 3 U . S . 3 0 7 , 3 2 4 (19 7 9 ). I n K ans as , pr emedi t at i on i s defi ned as “the pr oces s of s i m pl yt hi nki ng abouta pr opos ed ki l l i ng befor e enga gi ng i n t he homi ci dal conduct . ” Stat e v. R i ce , 9 3 2 P . 2 d 9 8 1 , 9 9 6 ( Ka n . 1 9 9 7 ) . I n t h e i n s t a n tc a s e , t h e Ka n s a s S u p r e me C our texpl ai ned that“the j ur yhas a r i ghtt o i nferpr emedi t at i on fr om t he es t abl i s hed ci r cumst ance s i f the i nfer ence i s a r eas onabl e one. ” C l em ons , 45 P. 3d at390. I tw enton t o hol d t hatt he evi dence adduce d attr i al , i n par t i cul art hat C l emons w ai t ed out s i de the s m oke s hop aft ert he vi ct i m s w enti ns i de and s hot M cPher s on i n t he bac k, coul d have l ed a r at i onal fac t - fi ndert o concl ude that C lem o n s a c ted w ith p re m e d itatio n . T h e sta te c o u rt’s d e c isio n , o f c o u rse , is e n title d to d e fe re n c e . Jacks on , 443 U . S. at323. H avi ng car eful l yr evi ew ed the re c o rd , w e a g re e w ith th e K a n sa s S u p re m e C o u rt th a t th e trial e v id e n c e c o u ld have l ed a r at i onal fac t - fi ndert o concl ude thatC l emons’ s m ur derof M cPher s on a n d a tte m p te d m u rd e r o f H u ff m a n w a s p re m e d ita te d .- 9- C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatC l emons has fai l ed t o m ake the re q u isite s h o w in g u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt is AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge