Opinion ID: 2815298
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim One – Duplicitous Charges

Text: Mr. Brown alleged in his petition that the charges against him of attempted firstdegree murder and aggravated battery were unconstitutionally duplicitous. The district court denied this claim as procedurally barred and on the merits. As to the former, the court noted that Mr. Brown had not raised this issue for review in the state appellate courts and had not otherwise overcome his failure to exhaust his claim. As to the latter, the court denied the claim because Mr. Brown had not shown that the charges against him posed any danger of constitutional violation at trial from duplicity. In his brief, Mr. Brown argues generally about how duplicitous charges can cause confusion and contends the prosecution presented evidence at trial on the alternative charges. Aplt. Br. at 7. He has not, however, shown that any of the dangers of duplicity that this court recognized in United States v. Trammell, 133 F.3d 1343, 1354 (10th Cir. 1998)—a non-unanimous verdict, a prejudiced subsequent double jeopardy defense, or court difficulty in determining admissibility of evidence—were present in his case. As the district court explained, the record shows the jury unanimously convicted Mr. Brown of two charges of attempted second degree murder, a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder. Even though this claim is unexhausted, a federal court may deny it on the merits so long as none of the petitioner’s claims has merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); Fairchild v. Workman, 579 F.3d 1134, 1156 (10th Cir. 2009); Moore v. Schoeman, 288 3 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2002). We conclude the district court correctly denied this claim on the merits and that reasonable jurists could not debate that ruling. We therefore deny a COA.