Opinion ID: 3062197
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: In a habeas case challenging a state court conviction, “the appropriate standard of review depends upon whether a claim was decided on the merits in state court.” McLuckie v. Abbott, 337 F.3d 1193, 1197 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-03 (2000). The OCCA did not address the merits of Mr. Stouffer’s jury tampering claim. Mr. Stouffer raised this issue in his petition for state post-conviction relief through his claim that his counsel on direct appeal had been ineffective for failing to raise it. He asked the OCCA for an evidentiary hearing. The OCCA rejected the jury tampering claim, stating that it had addressed the issue on direct appeal and “principles of res judicata . . . barred [Mr. Stouffer] from litigating this issue anew.” Stouffer v. Oklahoma, No. PCD-2003835, slip op. at 5 (Okla. Crim. App. Oct. 26, 2007) (unpublished). The parties agree that the OCCA misread the record and that the jury tampering claim was not addressed on direct appeal. Because the OCCA did not consider the merits of this claim, “our standard of review is more searching” than our review of issues that have been resolved on the merits by the state court. Alverson v. Workman, 595 F.3d 1142, 1146 (10th Cir. 2010). We consider legal questions de novo and factual findings, if any, for clear error. Id.; Cannon v. Mullin, 383 F.3d 1152, 1160 (10th Cir. 2004). We apply an abuse of discretion -6- standard in reviewing a trial court’s decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged jury tampering. United States v. Scull, 321 F.3d 1270, 1280 (10th Cir. 2003).