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

### Ju ly18,2007 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 HE CT OR OM AR S ANT OYO,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. JU S T IN JO N E S , D ir ec tor,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 6303 ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 5 - 1 2 5 3 - L) (W .D . O k la .)

OR DE R D E NY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e M c CO NNELL , P O R F IL IO , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. H ect orO m arSant oy o, an O kl ahoma st at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y( C O A ) t hatw oul d al l ow hi m t o chal l enge the di s t r i ct c o u r t ’ s o r d e rd e n y i n g h i s p e t i t i o n fo ra wr i to f h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 . See 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . B e c a u s e w e c o n c l u d e t h a tM r . S a n t o yo h a s fa ile d to m a k e “ a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t,” w e D E N Y h is re q u e s t fo r a C O A a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. Id . at § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). I . Backg r ound I n 2002, an O kl ahoma j ur yconvi ct ed M r . Sant oy o of tr aff i cki ng i n i l l egal d ru g s . He wa s s e n t e n c e d t o l i fe i mp r i s o n me n ta n d a s s e s s e d a fi n e o f $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 . He fi l ed a di r ectappea l ( w i t h di ffe r entcouns el r epr es ent i ng hi m ) , cont endi ng thatt heW e not e thatt he cumul at i ve- err orcl ai m r ai s ed i n M r . Sant oy o’ s appl i cat i on 1 fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief re lied u p o n so m e a lleg e d trial c o u rt e rro rs th a t h e d id n o t p re se n t o n d ire c t ap p e a l.

- 2- evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i on, pr os ecut or i al m i s conductdeni ed hi m a fa i rtr i al , hi s s ent ence w as exce s s i ve, and t he cumul at i ve effec tof thes e err or s deni ed hi m a fa i rtr i al . I n 2004, the O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( O C C A ) r ej ect ed thes e fourcont ent i ons and a ffir m e d M r. S a n to y o ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . M r. S a n to y o th e n filed a n a p p lica tio n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief in sta te cour t , as s er t i ng t hatt he s epar at e and c um ul at i ve effec tof tr i al cour terr or s and pr os ecut or i al m i s conductdepr i ved hi m of a fai rtr i al and due pr oces s of l aw , he w as deni ed hi s Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o effect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al and appel l at e couns el , and hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence s houl d be vac at ed bec aus e he i s actual l y i nnocent . I n Sept ember2005, t he s t at e courtdeni ed hi s appl i cat i on 1 forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, s t at i ng:

W i t h t he exc ept i on of hi s cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of appel l at e couns el , Pet i t i onercoul d have r ai s ed the ar gum ent s i n the i ns t antA ppl i cat i on on di r ectappea l . I ndeed, hi s cl ai m of p r o s e c u t o r i a l mi s c o n d u c th a s b e e n p r e v i o u s l yr a i s e d a n d r ej e c t e d . As s uch i ti s barr ed byt he doctr i ne of re s ju d ica ta . P eti ti o n er’s rem ainin g claim s are b arred b ythe d o ctri n e o f w aive r. E v en w ere this C o u rtn o t t o ap p lythe p roc ed u ral ba r of w aive r, P et i t i on er w ou l d n ot be ent i t l ed to the co l l at eral rel i ef he no w seeks. R . D o c . 2 6 , E x . D a t 3 ; se e B ro w n in gv . S ta te , 1 4 4 P . 3 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 6 ( Ok l a . Cr i m. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (“ W e w ill n o t trea t th e p o st-c o n v ictio n p ro c e ss a s a se c o n d a p p e a l,- 3-

and w i l l appl yt he doctr i nes of r es j udi cata and w ai ver w here a cl ai m ei ther w as, o r co u ld h av e b ee n , raised in the p eti ti o n er’s d ir ec t app ea l. ”), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 4 0 6 (20 0 6 ). T h e state c o u rtalso rejected M r. S an toy o ’s i neffect i ve- as s i s t ance - of- appel l at e- couns el cl ai m , not i ng thatcouns el w as not r equi r ed t o r ai s e eve r yconce i vabl e ar gum entforr evi ew on appea l and conc l udi ng t hatM r . Sant oy o had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h thatcouns el ’ s per form ance w as “cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci ent . ” R . D oc. 26, E x. D at5 ( ci t i ng Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (19 8 4 )). In O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 , w h ile h is a p p e a l to th e O C C A f ro m th e d e n ial o f

h is appl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w as pendi ng, M r . Sant oy o pet i t i oned the fede r al di s t r i ctcour tfora w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2254. I n the pet i t i on he s oughtr el i ef on e i ghtgr ounds . Speci fi cal l y , he al l eged that : ( 1) the evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i on, ( 2) pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct depr i ved hi m of a fai rt r i al and due pr oces s of l aw , ( 3) hi s s ent ence w as u n co n sti tuti o n all yex ce ssive , (4) the sep ara te an d cu m u lat ive e ffec t of tr ial co u rt err or s and pr os ecut or i al m i s conductdepr i ved hi m of a fai rtr i al and due pr oces s of l aw , ( 5 and 6) he w as deni ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o effect i ve as s i s t ance of t r i al couns el , ( 7) he w as deni ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o effect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el , and ( 8) hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence s houl d be vac at edG rou n d fo u r m irrors the cu m u lat ive-e rror claim raised in h is st ate c o u rt 2 appl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef.

- 4- beca us e he i s actual l y i nnocent . I n J anuary2006, t he O C C A aff i r m ed the deni al 2 of M r . Sant oy o’ s appl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. I n Sept ember2006, t he fede r al di s t r i ctcour t , adopt i ng t he magi s tr at e j udge’ s J ul y2006 t hi r ty - ni ne page r epor tand r ecomm endat i on, deni ed hi s habea s pet i t i on. I n s o doi ng, t he di s tr i ct cour thel d t hatt he O C C A ’ s on- t he- m er i t s r ej ect i on on di r ectappea l of gr ounds o n e th ro u g h th re e w a s n o t co n tra ryto , o r a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f, cle a rly e s ta b lis h e d fe d e ra l la w . See i d. at§ 2254( d) . T ur ni ng t o gr ounds four , fi ve, s i x, and ei ght , t he di s t r i ctcour tfound thatt he O C C A ’ s r el i ance on i t s pr ocedur al bar rul e, i n i t s pos t - convi ct i on di s pos i t i on, w as an ade quat e and i ndepende ntgr ound for i t s deci si on such thatthe d i stri ctcou rtw ou l d o nlycon si der the m eri t s of t hese gr ounds i f M r . Sant oy o demonstr at ed ca us e fort he defaul tand ac tual pr ej udi ce, o r th at a f

u n d am en tal m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce w o u ld resu ltfro m the c o u rt ’s fa il u re to c o n s id e r t h e m . S e e Sm ith v . Mu lli n , 379 F. 3d 919, 925 ( 10th C i r . 2004) (o b se rv in g th a t h a b e a s p e tit io n e r w ill n o t re c e iv e re v iew o f c laim s “ d e fa u lted in st at e cou rton i nd epen den tand adeq uate s t at e proced ural groun ds un l ess [pet i t i oner ] has demonstr at ed ca us e and pr ej udi ce ora funda m ent al m i s carr i age of ju stic e ” ); s ee als o E ngl is h v. C ody , 146 F. 3d 1257, 1264 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( s t at i ng t hatO kl ahoma’ s pr ocedur al barw i l l pr ecl ude habe as r evi ew of i neffect i ve a ss ista n c e c laim s o n lyw h e n “ trial a n d a p p e llate c o u n se l d iffe r” a n d th e “ c laim- 5-

can be r es ol ved upon the tr i al r ecor d al one”) . N ext , the courtcons trued gr ound seven a s ass ert i ng t hat i neffect i ve assi st ance o f app el l at e cou nsel w as both cause forM r . Sant oy o’ s pr ocedur al defa ul tand a s epar at e gr ound forhabea s r el i ef. B ut t he courtes s ent i al l yhel d t hatt he O C C A ’ s on- the- m er i t s r ej ect i on of gr ound s even w as notcontr aryt o, oran unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe d e ra l la w . See 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) . T hus , the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded that M r . Sant oy o had notdemonstr at ed ca us e forthe defaul tof gr ounds four , fi ve, s i x, and ei ght ; t hati tw as unnece s s aryt o det erm i ne w hetherhe had de m ons tr at ed a c tu a l p reju d ice ; an d th a t a f u n d a m e n tal m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e w o u ld n o t re su lt fr om t he court ’ s fai l ur e t o cons i derthes e gr ounds . T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o deni ed M r . Sant oy o’ s m ot i on t o s uppl ementthe r ecor d w i th a M ay2006 l et t erfr om the M exi can Consul at e bec aus e i tdi d not , i n acc or dance w i th R ul e 7( b) of the R ul es G o v e rn in g S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 C a s e s , p re d a te h is O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n . An d , c i t i n g 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tfo u n d th a th e h a d n o ts h o wn th a t h e w a s e n title d to a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . See a lso R . D oc. 26, E x. D ( or der deny i ng appl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef) at5 ( s t at i ng thatpet i t i onerhad not d e m o n s tr a te d h is e n title m e n t to a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g ). M r . Sant oy o s ubs equent l ys oughta C O A fr om the di s tr i ctcour tand req u ested leav e to p roc ee d in fo rm a p au p eris (I F P ) on ap p ea l. T h e d istri ct co u rt deni ed hi s r eques tfora C O A and deni ed hi s appl i cat i on t o pr ocee d I FP, rul i ngM r. S a n to y o w ith d re w g ro u n d th re e (e x c e ss iv e se n ten c e ). R . D o c . 3 9 a t 7 3 (“ P e tit io n e r . . . v o lu n tar ilyw ith d ra w s . . . c laim [ th re e ].”) ; i d. D o c . 4 1 a t 3 (sam e).

- 6- t hathe had “ notpr es ent ed a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton appea l and that th e a p p e a l [ w a ]s n o t ta k e n in g o o d fa ith .” Id. D o c . 4 7 a t 3 . I I . D i s cus s i on In h is a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A a n d h is o p e n in g b rie f, M r. S a n to y o re p e a ts gr ounds one, t w o, and s even ( i ns uffi ci entevi dence , pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , and in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f a p p e llate c o u n se l), an d , as fa r a s w e c a n d isc e rn , o bjec ts t o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al , on pr ocedur al gr ounds , of gr ounds four , fi ve, s i x, and ei ght( cumul at i ve err or , i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el , and ac tual i nnocenc e) . H e al s o as s ert s t hatt he di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bynot

3 hol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng w i th appoi nt ed couns el , and bydeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppl ementt he r ecor d w i t h a l et t erfr om t he M exi can Consul at e. Fi nal l y , he asse rt s tha t th e d istri ct co u rterred b yn o t add ressing h is argu m en t th at th e “ stat e’s pr ocedur al rul e r equi r i ng t hatal l cl ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el b e ra ised o n d ir ec t app ea l w ith su p p lem en tat ion o f th e re co rd b yev iden ti ary h e a rin g , an d g e n e ra l fa ilu re o f [ p u b lic d e fe n d e rs] a ss ig n e d to n o n -c a p ital c a se s to do s o, r ender s t he [pr ocedur al ] rul e i nadequa t e t o barfede r al r evi ew . ” A ppl i cat i on fora C O A at2e.- 7-

A habea s pet i t i onerl i ke M r . Sant oy o m ayappea l the deni al of hi s pet i t i on for r el i ef un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 o nlyi f t he d i stri ctcou rtor this C ou rtfi rs t is s u e s a C O A . Id. at§ 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . A C O A w i l l i s s ue onl yi f a pe t i t i oner m akes a “s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” Id. at § 2253( c) ( 2) . T o m ake s uch a s how i ng, a pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e that “r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T o the ext entthatthe di s tr i ct cour tdi s m i s s es t he pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , a pet i t i onerm us tal s o s how t hat“j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Id. Fur ther , w e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on the d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n s to d en ya p eti ti o n er’s req u est fo r an ev iden ti ary hear i ng, and a pe t i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o s uppl ementthe r ecor d. Schi r i r o v. Landrigan , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 9 3 3 , 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 3 9 -40 (20 0 7 ) (r eq u est fo r ev iden ti ary h e a rin g ); A nders on v. A t t ’ y G en. of

Kan. , 425 F. 3d 853, 858 ( 10th C i r . 2005) (sam e); G i l l et t e v. Tan sy , 1 7 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (m o tio n to su p p lem en t r ec o rd). E v en u n d er the li b era l st an d ard b yw h ich w e jud g e a p ro se li ti g an t’ s p le a d in g s , s ee Ledbe t t erv. C i t y of Topeka , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), M r . Sant oy o has fai l ed t o convi nce us thatthe di s tr i ctcour ts houl d have r es ol ved- 8-

hi s pet i t i on di ffe r ent l y . Speci fi cal l y , r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d notdebat e the fede r al di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe O C C A ’ s r ej ect i on of gr ounds one, t w o, and s even w as notcontr aryt o, oran unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, the s t andar ds s etfor t h i n J a c kso n v . Virg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 319 ( 1979) ( i ns uffi ci ent e v id e n c e ), D on nell

y v. D eC hrist oforo , 416 U . S. 637, 643 ( 1974) ( pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct ) , and Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 (i n e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l) . L ik e w ise , b e c a u se M r. S a n to y o c a n n o t d e m o n stra te c a u se a n d p reju d ice fo r h is pr ocedur al defa ul tof gr ounds four , fi ve, s i x, and ei ght , and bec aus e hi s cl ai m s of a funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce a r e unava i l i ng, j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d not fi nd i tdebat abl e w hethert he di s tr i ctcour tw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ngs on th e s e g ro u n d s . S e e Sm ith , 379 F. 3d at925. M or eover , the di s tr i ctcour tdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng t hatM r . Sant oy o had nots how n ent i t l ementt o an evi dent i aryhear i ng, ori n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppl ementthe r ecor d, and the c o u rt d id n o t er r b yfa ili n g to e x p licitlya d d re ss h is a rg u m e n t, as w e u n d e rsta n d it, t hatfede r al r evi ew cannotbe barr ed byO kl ahoma’ s pr ocedur al rul e r equi r i ng t hat in e ffe c tiv e -a s s is ta n c e -o f-t ri a l- c o u n s e l c la im s b e ra is e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l.- 9- I I I . C oncl usi on M r. S a n to y o ’s a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A is D E N IE D a n d th e a p p e a l is D IS M IS S E D . H is a p p lic a tio n to p ro c e e d IF P o n a p p e a l is G R A N T E D . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge