Opinion ID: 6345772
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellate counsel was ineffective;

Text: 2. His trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to obtain and introduce a video of a victim’s medical examination; 3. His trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to find Regina Johnson; 4. The trial court erred in denying Mr. Padillow’s pro se motion to dismiss his trial attorneys; 4 Appellate Case: 21-5064 Document: 010110691410 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 5 5. His trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to object to the admission of “crucial evidence,” R. Vol. II at 16; 6. The trial court erred in denying Mr. Padillow’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his application for post-conviction relief; 7. The trial court erred in removing Mr. Padillow from the courtroom during closing arguments in violation of the Confrontation Clause; and 8. The trial court erred in denying Mr. Padillow the right to testify. The district court denied Mr. Padillow’s petition and denied a COA. The court first held that because Mr. Padillow did not raise claims 2 through 5 on direct appeal, they were waived under Oklahoma law and therefore procedurally barred. The court noted that Mr. Padillow could overcome the procedural default if he showed cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or showed that failure to consider the claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. R. Vol. I at 264 (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991)). The court concluded that Mr. Padillow had made no such showing. The district court addressed and rejected the merits of Mr. Padillow’s remaining claims. First, it held that none of the claimed appellate counsel errors satisfied the ineffective assistance test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Second, it held that the trial court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Padillow’s application for post-conviction relief cannot be challenged on habeas review because there is no federal constitutional requirement that states provide a criminal defendant with any particular form of collateral review. Third, it rejected Mr. Padillow’s claims that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by 5 Appellate Case: 21-5064 Document: 010110691410 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 6 removing him from the courtroom after he attacked his counsel. In particular, it held that under Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970), and in light of Mr. Padillow’s “mistreatment of attorneys, attempts to manipulate them and the court, aggressive behavior, and a physical attack during trial . . . the OCCA’s findings were [not] contrary to or an unreasonable application of relevant Supreme Court law.” R. Vol. I at 279. Mr. Padillow requests a COA to appeal portions of the district court’s order and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis.