Opinion ID: 6499100
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim 3 – Interpretation of state statute

Text: Claim 3 alleged that the OCCA misinterpreted the Oklahoma statute regarding aggravated possession of child pornography by holding that images on one computer hard 9 Appellate Case: 21-5027 Document: 010110708541 Date Filed: 07/11/2022 Page: 10 drive could be counted separately, rather than as one unit, to establish the 100 images required for aggravated possession. See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1040.12a. The district court rejected this claim, stating that a challenge to a state court’s interpretation of state law generally provides no ground for federal habeas relief. See Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (per curiam) (“We have repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus.”); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”); Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333, 1339 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law[.]” (quotations omitted)). The district court recognized, however, that “[h]abeas relief for claims of state-law error are available . . . when the error ‘was so grossly prejudicial that it fatally infected the trial and denied the fundamental fairness that is the essence of due process,’” Aplt. App., Vol. 3 at 862 (quoting Hooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148, 1180 (10th Cir. 2012)). See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68; Leatherwood v. Allbaugh, 861 F.3d 1034, 1043 (10th Cir. 2017) (“A prisoner may seek relief, however, if a state law decision is so fundamentally unfair that it implicates federal due process.”). But the court held that Mr. Hamilton had not satisfied that standard. Before this court, Mr. Hamilton does not challenge the district court’s analysis. He instead repeats that the OCCA misinterpreted Oklahoma law. He thus has waived any arguments regarding the district court’s decision, see Davis v. McCollum, 798 F.3d 10 Appellate Case: 21-5027 Document: 010110708541 Date Filed: 07/11/2022 Page: 11 at 1320, and necessarily has failed to establish that reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s rejection of this claim. We deny a COA on Claim 3.