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 ). A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u 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. 

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

### Jan u ary4,2007 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 AS A S . F OR E M AN,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 5186 v . (N .D . o f O k la .) E R I C FR A N K L I N , W ar den,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . CV - 0 2 - 7 7 0 - T CK )

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. **

A s a For eman se eks a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l t he di s t r i ctcourt ' s deni al of hi s pet i t i on forfede r al habea s corpus r el i ef unde r18 U . S. C . § 2254. Fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons as t he di s tr i ctcourt , w e deny h is re q u e st a n d d ism iss th is a p p e a l.-2- I . Backg r ound T hi s cas e ar i s es outof a r obberyof a Texac o conveni ence s t or e i n T ul s a, O kl ahoma on O ct ober25, 1999. J us taft er6: 00 a. m . , a man, l at eri dent i fi ed as For eman, w ear i ng a s ki m as k and gl oves and ca rry i ng a but cherkni fe or der ed the s t or e cl erk t o open the s afe and hand ove rt he money . T hough he di d not phy s i cal l yharm her , For eman use d the kni fe t o thr eat en the cl erk, aft erw hi ch he r an fr om t he s t or e. A cus t om erw ho had bee n i n the s t or e ea r l i er , R oder i ck Sander s , s aw For eman runni ng dow n the s tr eetw i th the mask a nd s ack i n hand and t ackl ed hi m fr om behi nd. For eman struck Sander s i n the t empl e w i th the kni fe dur i ng t he s cuff l e. W i t h t he hel p of tw o otherm en, Sander s s ubdued For eman unt i l pol i ce a r r i ved. P o lic e a rr e s te d F o re m a n a t th e s c e n e a n d re c o v e re d a s k i m a s k , g lo v e s , a but cherkni fe, and a c anvas bag cont ai ni ng $8, 627. 40. B efor e bei ng t aken t o t he pol i ce s t at i on, t he Texaco c l erk pos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed For eman as t he man t hat r obbed the s t or e. A tt he s t at i on, For eman w r ot e and s i gned a c onfes s i on a d m i t t i n g t h e r o b b e r y. For eman w as convi ct ed bya j ur yon thr ee c ount s : r obberyw i th a dange r ous w ea p o n , assa u ltw ith a d an g ero u s w ea p o n w h il e m ask ed , an d assa u ltan d b att ery w i t h a dange r ous w eapon. H e w as s ent ence d t o thr ee c ons ecut i ve t erm s t ot al i ng fif ty -fiv e y e a rs o f

im p riso n m e n t. H is c o n v ictio n w a s a ffirm e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, aft er w hich he fil ed thi s pet i t i on for federal hab eas corpus.-3-

I n hi s § 2254 pet i t i on, For eman al l eges the s ame t hr ee i s s ues he r ai s ed on di r ectappea l : ( 1) hi s convi ct i ons forboth r obberyw i th a dange r ous w eapon a nd a ss a u lt w ith a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n w h ile m a sk e d v io late a n O k lah o m a sta tu te pr ohi bi t i ng m or e than one puni s hm entforthe s ame offens e; ( 2) pr os ecut or i al m i s conductr equi r es a new t r i al orm odi fi cat i on of hi s s ent ence s ; and ( 3) the tr i al cour terr ed i n r efus i ng hi s r eques t ed j ur yi ns truct i ons r egar di ng l es s eri ncl uded offenses. T he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed h i s pet i t i on and F orem an ap peals . I I . D i s c us s i on U ndert he A nt i - T err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ct( A E D PA ) , w hen a pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s have a l r eadybeen a dj udi cat ed i n s t at e court , t he pet i t i oner m ayonl yobt ai n fede r al habea s r el i ef i f the s t at e dec i s i on i s “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 , ” 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 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 .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). See a lso Wi l l i a ms v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 2 (2 0 0 0 ); Maynar d v. B oone , 4 6 8 F .3 d 6 6 5 , 6 6 9 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) . Si nce the O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( O C C A ) has al r eady adjud icated ea ch o f F o rem an ' s claim s o n d ir ec t app ea l, w e a p p lythis st an d ard fro m § 2 2 5 4 (d). For eman’ s fi r s tcl ai m i s t hathi s convi ct i ons foras s aul tw i th a dange r ous w eapon w hi l e maske d and r obberyw i th a dange r ous w eapon— both ar i s i ng outof h is c o n f ro n tatio n w ith th e T e x a c o sto re c ler k

— v io late th e p ro h ib iti o n o n m u lti p le-4-

puni s hm ent s found atO kl a. St at . t i t . 21, § 11. T he di s tr i ctcour tw as corr ectthat th is is n o t a c o g n iza b le c laim fo r fe d e ra l h a b e a s re lief b e c a u se w e lac k a u th o rity to re v ie w a s ta te c o u rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f its o w n la w s . Est el l e v. McG uir e , 502 U . S . 6 2 , 6 7

– 6 8 (19 9 1 ). Instea d , o u r role is l im it ed to d ec iding w h ethe r a c o n v i c t i o n v i o l a t e d t h e Co n s t i tu t i o n o rl a ws o f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 (a). T o t he ext entt hatFor eman’ s cl ai m can be cons trued as s t at i ng a vi ol at i on o f th e fe d e ra l co n stitu tio n a l p ro h ib iti o n o n d o u b le je o p a rd y , w e a g re e F o re m a n is notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on thatbas i s . W hetherpuni s hm ent s ar e cons i der ed

“ m u ltip le ” fo r p u rp o s e s o f d o u b le je o p a rd yis a q u e s tio n o f le g is la tiv e in te n t. O hi o v. Johns on , 4 6 7 U . S . 4 9 3 , 4 9 9 (19 8 4 ). B u t i n situ ati o n s li k e this o n e w h ere l egi s l at i ve i nt enti s uncl ear , w e appl ythe B l ockburgert es t : “w her e the s ame act or transact i on con st i tutes a viol at i on of tw o d i st i nct s t atutoryprovis i on s, the tes t t o be appl i ed t o det erm i ne w hetherther e ar e tw o offe ns es oronl yone, i s w hether eac h pr ovi s i on r equi r es pr oof of a fac tw hi ch the otherdoes not . ” B l ockburgerv. Uni t ed Stat es , 2 8 4 U .S . 2 9 9 , 3 0 4 (1 9 3 2 ). A ss a u lt w ith a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n w h ile m as ked and r obberyw i t h a dange r ous w eapon, cl ear l yr equi r e pr oof of di s t i nct el ement s — t he l at t err equi r es s om ethi ng t o be s t ol en. T hus , the dual convi ct i on d o e s n o tv i o l a t e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y. For eman' s s econd c l ai m l i kew i s e fa i l s underourpr ece dent s . H e ar gues pr os ecut or i al m i s conductw arr ant s a r ever s al fora new tr i al ora modi fi cat i on of-5-

h is s e n ten c e s. T h e O C C A fo u n d th a t six o f e ig h t alle g e d lyim p ro p e r c o m m e n ts b yth e p ro s e c u to r w e re n o t o bje c te d to a t tr ia l a n d d id n o t c o n s titu te p la in e rr o r. W ith re sp e c t to th e re m a in in g tw o , the O C C A d e ter m in e d th a t o n e c a u se d m e re ly harm l es s err orw hi l e anyerr orcaus ed bythe s econd w as cur ed on s ubs equent ques t i oni ng. Pet i t i oner s ar e ent i t l ed t o habea s corpus r el i ef forpr os ecut or i al m i s conductonl yi f the mi s conducti s s o extr eme t hati tr ender s the ent i r e tr i al f u n d a m e n ta lly u n fa ir . D on nell y v. D eC hristoforo , 4 1 6 U . S . 6 3 7 , 6 4 2

– 4 8 (19 7 4 ); C um m i ngs v. E vans , 161 F. 3d 610, 618 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . B eca us e w e agr ee a ny a l l e g e d mi s c o n d u c ti n t h i s c a s e d i d n o tr e s u l ti n a v i o l a t i o n o f d u e p r o c e s s , we a ffi r m th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s r ej e c t i o n o f F o r e ma n ’ s s e c o n d c l a i m. F inally , w e a lso rejec t Fo rem an ’s th ir d claim , all eg ing the tri al co u rt co m m itted re v ersible e rror b yd en y ing h is r eq u est fo r l esse r i n clud ed o ffen se ju ry i ns t ruct i ons . U nderT enth C i r cui tl aw , the fa i l ur e of a s t at e courtt o i ns tructon l es s eri ncl uded offens es i n a non- capi t al cas e neve rr ai s es a cons t i tut i onal q u e s tio n . L ujan v. Tan sy , 2 F. 3d 1031, 1036 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . I n anyevent , the O C C A di d noterri n concl udi ng thatthe i ns truct i on w as notw arr ant ed bas ed on th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial.-6- I I I . C oncl usi on F o rt h e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we DE NY F o r e ma n ’ s r e q u e s tfo ra CO A.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge