Court Opinion

ID: 9917014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 15:00:36.258661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:54:44.895716
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3118     Document: 010110982013         Date Filed: 01/11/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            January 11, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  EDDIE LAMAR THOMAS, JR.,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 23-3118
                                                      (D.C. No. 5:22-CV-03121-JWL)
  DON LANGFORD,                                                  (D. Kan.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and LUCERO, Senior Circuit
 Judge.
                  _________________________________

        Eddie Lamar Thomas, Jr., proceeding pro se1 seeks a Certificate of Appealability

 (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus under

 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
 res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
 consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
        1
         Because Thomas proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, but we
 “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments
 and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840
 (10th Cir. 2005).
Appellate Case: 23-3118     Document: 010110982013        Date Filed: 01/11/2024       Page: 2

                                     BACKGROUND

       A Kansas jury convicted Thomas of robbery and first-degree murder and he was

 sentenced to life imprisonment. The Kansas appellate courts affirmed the conviction and

 sentence on direct appeal. See State v. Thomas, 353 P.3d 1134, 1143 (Kan. 2015). The

 state supreme court set forth the factual basis for Thomas’s underlying conviction:

              Eddie Thomas, Jr. shot and killed Christopher Dotson after agreeing
       to have sex with Dotson in exchange for money . . . . Dotson’s body was
       found in his apartment. An autopsy revealed that he died from a single
       gunshot wound to the head . . . . Thomas voluntarily appeared at the
       Shawnee Police Department for an interview . . . . [He] confessed that
       while at the apartment, he shot Dotson with a .40 caliber Ruger pistol and
       took Dotson’s wallet.

              After the interview, law enforcement officers applied for a warrant
       to search the residence of Thomas’ girlfriend, Shana Williams. The
       affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant included Thomas’
       admissions that (1) he owned a .40 caliber Ruger pistol; (2) he took the
       pistol with him to Dotson’s apartment; and (3) he shot Dotson in the face.

               During the search of Williams’ residence, police seized a white
       t-shirt and denim shorts that appeared to have small drops of blood on
       them. The search also revealed a receipt signed by Thomas itemizing the
       purchase of a Ruger P94 pistol and .40 caliber Smith and Wesson
       ammunition. Police were unable to locate the pistol or ammunition.

              Thomas was first charged with first-degree murder and aggravated
       robbery . . . . However, after his arraignment, Thomas filed a motion to
       suppress statements he made during his interview, claiming a Miranda
       violation. The district court granted Thomas’ motion and issued an order
       suppressing portions of Thomas’ interview, including his confessions that
       he owned a pistol, shot Dotson, and took Dotson’s wallet. The district
       court later dismissed the criminal charges because Thomas’ confessions
       were the only evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to support the
       finding of probable cause for the filed charges.

              The State refiled charges against Thomas for first-degree murder
       under alternative theories of premeditation and felony murder, and for
       aggravated robbery. Following another preliminary hearing, the district

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-3118     Document: 010110982013         Date Filed: 01/11/2024       Page: 3

        court found that probable cause existed to bind Thomas over for trial. The
        district court also incorporated its order from Thomas’ original criminal
        case, which had suppressed Thomas’ un-Mirandized confessions. Thomas
        thereafter filed a motion seeking to suppress the physical items seized when
        the police executed the search warrant which had been issued upon an
        affidavit containing Thomas’ unlawfully obtained incriminating statements.
        The district court denied the motion.

 Id. at 1136–38.

        Thomas sought state habeas relief by filing a motion under Kan. Stat. Ann.

 § 60-1507. The Kansas district court denied the motion, the Kansas Court of Appeals

 affirmed the denial, and the state supreme court denied Thomas’s petition for further

 review.

        Thomas then filed a § 2254 petition in federal district court. He advanced two

 claims: (1) improper admission at trial of physical evidence seized pursuant to a search

 warrant obtained in part based on statements he made without having received his

 Miranda warnings, and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to adequately

 seek exclusion of that evidence. The district court denied the petition and denied a COA.

                                       DISCUSSION

        To appeal the denial of his § 2254 petition, Thomas must obtain a COA by

 “showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been

 resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve

 encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our consideration of a COA request incorporates the

 “deferential treatment of state court decisions” in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

 Penalty Act (AEDPA). Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 2004). Under

                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-3118      Document: 010110982013            Date Filed: 01/11/2024    Page: 4

 AEDPA, to obtain habeas relief, “a state prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling

 on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was

 an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for

 fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011).

        Thomas has not made that showing. As the district court concluded, his first

 habeas claim—improper admission of physical evidence—fails because, among other

 reasons, “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of

 a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas

 corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or

 seizure was introduced at his trial.” R. vol. 1 at 166 (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S.

 465, 494 (1976)). Thomas does not dispute that the Kansas courts provided him a full

 and fair opportunity to litigate his claim that the admission of the evidence was

 unconstitutional, so reasonable jurists could not dispute that he is not entitled to habeas

 relief on this basis.

        Thomas’s second habeas claim—ineffective assistance of counsel—fails because

 the state supreme court concluded the evidence described in the warrant affidavit

 “supported a finding of probable cause apart from [his] un-Mirandized confessions.”

 Thomas, 353 P.3d at 1143. Although Thomas may disagree with this conclusion, he has

 not established either that counsel’s efforts on the matter “fell below an objective

 standard of reasonableness,” or that counsel’s “deficient performance prejudiced the

 defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). No reasonable jurist

 could debate the district court’s resolution of this issue.

                                                4
Appellate Case: 23-3118   Document: 010110982013      Date Filed: 01/11/2024   Page: 5

                                  CONCLUSION

       We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

                                          Entered for the Court

                                          Carlos F. Lucero
                                          Circuit Judge

                                         5