Opinion ID: 805977
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State-Law Evidentiary Errors

Text: Mr. Hooks grounds two of his claims on errors of state law. First, he asserts that the trial court improperly prevented him from introducing evidence that Dr. Phillip Murphy, whose testing of Mr. Hooks in 1988 produced an IQ score of 80, had been subject to professional discipline. Second, he claims that the trial court admitted certain prejudicial and irrelevant evidence in violation of the OCCA’s decision in Lambert, 71 P.3d at 31–32 (setting forth rules of procedure for postconviction mental-retardation proceedings). Of course, “[f]ederal habeas review is not available to correct state law evidentiary errors.” Ochoa, 669 F.3d at 1144 (quoting Smallwood v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 1257, 1275 (10th Cir. 1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a habeas court, we sit only to vindicate an applicant’s constitutional rights. Thus, Mr. Hooks is entitled to relief only if an alleged state-law error was “was so grossly prejudicial that it fatally infected the trial and denied the fundamental fairness that is the essence of due process.” Revilla, 283 F.3d at 1212 (alteration omitted) (quoting Fox v. Ward, 200 F.3d 1286, 1296 (10th Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). -45- Reviewing Mr. Hooks’s claims of error, we conclude that he has failed to demonstrate the existence of a state-law error, much less a “grossly prejudicial” one. Revilla, 283 F.3d at 1212 (quoting Fox, 200 F.3d at 1296) (internal quotation marks omitted). We begin with the first claim. Mr. Hooks sought to introduce evidence at the Atkins trial concerning Dr. Murphy’s probationary status with the Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Psychologists. The State objected, claiming a discovery violation; the trial court agreed; and on appeal, the OCCA found no abuse of discretion. See Hooks Atkins Appeal, 126 P.3d at 643. Mr. Hooks tells us, with almost no elaboration, that the OCCA’s conclusion contravenes Atkins. We are nonplused by that assertion. Mr. Hooks does not explain why the Oklahoma courts erred as a matter of state law, nor why any alleged error abridged “the fundamental fairness that is the essence of due process.” Revilla, 283 F.3d at 1212 (quoting Fox, 200 F.3d at 1296) (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the perfunctory treatment of this claim, we reject it. With respect to his second claim, Mr. Hooks objects to the admission of three items of evidence: (1) testimony that he ran a prostitution ring, (2) a tape-recorded interview of him that allowed the jury to infer that he had murdered Ms. Blaine, and (3) testimony concerning his previous run-ins with law enforcement. He claims admitting this evidence violated the OCCA’s Lambert decision. In his Atkins appeal, Mr. Hooks articulated this claim only with respect to the first two items of evidence. We exercise our discretion to consider all three items because the claim is without merit. See 18 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Revilla, 283 F.3d at 1211. -46- In Lambert, the OCCA held that the jury in an Atkins proceeding “should not hear evidence of the crimes for which [a defendant] was convicted, unless particular facts of the case are relevant to the issue of mental retardation.” 71 P.3d at 31. On appeal from the Atkins jury’s verdict, the OCCA concluded that the admission of prostitution-ring evidence and the tape-recorded interview did not violate Lambert. The court found that the prostitution-ring evidence was “relevant to the issue of mental retardation” because it showed “a level of abstract thought, coupled with the ability to carry out plans, which might be beyond the capabilities of a mentally retarded person.” Hooks Atkins Appeal, 126 P.3d at 644. Furthermore, it concluded that the portions of the tape-recorded interview that were read to the jury contained “no reference” to the murder of Ms. Blaine and featured statements by Mr. Hooks concerning a number of daily activities, which were relevant to his “ability to understand and process information, to communicate, to function in society, and to care for himself and others.” Id. The OCCA also found that “[t]he trial court scrupulously limited this evidence, focusing on those aspects which have some bearing on Hooks’s mental abilities.” Id. Because the relevance of the evidence was “not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” the OCCA concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting it. Id. (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2403). The OCCA’s factual findings are presumed correct under 18 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that the OCCA committed no error. At best, Mr. Hooks’s arguments amount to disagreement with the OCCA -47- concerning the relevance and prejudicial effect of the evidence, but we are not persuaded that the OCCA was wrong. First, the prostitution-ring evidence was highly relevant to the question of mental retardation and, in that light, not unfairly prejudicial. See 4 M.R. Tr. at 198–205 (Test. of Ms. Dinh); 5 M.R. Tr. at 57 (Test. of Dr. Hall). Second, the interview evidence was both relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The portions of the interview presented to the jury were limited to statements by Mr. Hooks describing his daily activities and answering other questions about his life and relationships, and contained no reference to Ms. Blaine’s murder. See 5 M.R. Tr. at 164–73 (reading of interview transcript by Messrs. Mullenix and Siderias).17 Mr. Hooks says he was prejudiced because the jury was apparently able to piece together the facts of the crime in light of other evidence presented during the course of the Atkins trial. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 57. But the jury’s ability to put two and two together does not make the interview evidence unfairly prejudicial, or the trial court’s admission of it a violation of Lambert or the Oklahoma rules of evidence. Moreover, the admission most certainly does not abridge principles of fundamental fairness safeguarded by federal law. With respect to the third item, which the OCCA did not consider, Mr. Hooks claims that the State was allowed to present testimony indicating that he had been 17 In fact, in the interview, Mr. Hooks refers to Ms. Blaine in the present tense. See 5 M.R. Tr. at 166 (“She is 21 years of age.”); id. (answering “Yes, sir” to the question “And is your wife pregnant now?”). -48- convicted of armed robbery, arrested on a separate robbery charge, involved in many domestic disputes, and gotten into numerous fights in prison, all of which was “irrelevant to mental retardation.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 56. The testimony that Mr. Hooks has in mind is that of Dr. Hall. See 5 M.R. Tr. at 26–29. As the district court found, this portion of Dr. Hall’s testimony, which was never objected to, was focused on notations regarding Petitioner’s activities while being evaluated at Eastern State Hospital and while in the custody of the Department of Corrections, events leading the hospital officials to suspect malingering by Petitioner, and evaluations that he not only was not mentally retarded but very intelligent, aggressive and dangerous. Dr. Hall’s testimony of Petitioner’s past evaluations and actions was not only relevant to her expert opinion, but also to demonstrate evidence countering Petitioner’s claims of limitations in adaptive functioning. Hooks Habeas II, 693 F. Supp. 2d at 1308 (citation omitted). Thus, finding this rationale to be persuasive, we have no trouble concluding that Mr. Hooks has failed to demonstrate the existence of state-law error, much less a “grossly prejudicial” one. Revilla, 283 F.3d at 1212 (quoting Fox, 200 F.3d at 1296) (internal quotation marks omitted).