Court Opinion

ID: 9352452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 16:00:34.784629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:50.531393
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6061     Document: 010110793903          Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                              Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                              January 6, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                              Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                  Clerk of Court
  JESSE DEAN REDFEARN,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 22-6061
                                                         (D.C. No. 5:21-CV-00999-J)
  WILLIAM CHRIS RANKINS,                                        (W.D. Okla.)
  acting Warden,

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
                     _________________________________

 Before McHUGH, MORITZ, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Jesse Dean Redfearn, an Oklahoma prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability

 (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We

 deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

                                      BACKGROUND

        A jury convicted Mr. Redfearn of first-degree rape and kidnapping. The state

 district court sentenced him to life imprisonment on each count. The victim, T.A., did

        
        Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2) Scott Crow was replaced by William Chris
 Rankins as Acting Warden.

        
           This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the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.
Appellate Case: 22-6061      Document: 010110793903         Date Filed: 01/06/2023      Page: 2

 not appear at Mr. Redfearn’s trial to testify, but, over Mr. Redfearn’s objection, the trial

 court admitted the transcript of her earlier testimony at the preliminary hearing.

        On appeal before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA),

 Mr. Redfearn argued that the admission of T.A.’s preliminary hearing testimony violated

 his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and that the evidence was insufficient to

 sustain the convictions. The OCCA rejected these arguments and affirmed his

 convictions and sentences. Mr. Redfearn petitioned for habeas corpus under

 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court

 denied Mr. Redfearn’s petition, concluding he did not overcome the standards set forth in

 the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) for federal relief from state

 judgments.

        Mr. Redfearn now seeks a COA to press those two issues before this court.

                                        DISCUSSION

        To appeal the denial of his § 2254 petition, Mr. Redfearn 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

 AEDPA’s “deferential treatment of state court decisions.” Dockins v. Hines,

 374 F.3d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 2004). Under 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

                                               2
Appellate Case: 22-6061       Document: 010110793903         Date Filed: 01/06/2023      Page: 3

 comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”

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

        We first consider Mr. Redfearn’s argument under the Confrontation Clause.

 Under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004), testimonial hearsay, such as the

 transcript of preliminary hearing testimony entered into evidence in this case, is

 admissible “only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has

 had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” For a witness to be “unavailable,” the state

 must show that “the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain [the

 witness’s] presence at trial.” Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725 (1968).

        The OCCA concluded the state presented “detailed evidence” that was “more than

 adequate to support the trial court’s findings regarding the victim’s unavailability and the

 [s]tate’s due diligence.” Aplt. App. vol. 1 at 114. To wit, the state presented the

 testimony of the director of its victim witness center and an investigator for the district

 attorney’s office regarding their efforts to secure T.A.’s appearance at trial. The

 witnesses testified they had traveled to the location T.A. normally stays but were unable

 to find her on the day of trial. The witnesses also testified that T.A. “had never been

 definitive about testifying at trial.” Id. at 147.

        Mr. Redfearn argues the evidence established that “T.A. was absent by her own

 choice,” Aplt. Second Am. Combined Opening Br. and Appl. for COA at 7 (internal

 quotation marks omitted), and that the OCCA’s conclusion that she was unavailable was

 contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law. But “when a witness disappears

 before trial, it is always possible to think of additional steps that the prosecution might

                                                 3
Appellate Case: 22-6061      Document: 010110793903          Date Filed: 01/06/2023       Page: 4

 have taken to secure the witness’ presence, but the Sixth Amendment does not require the

 prosecution to exhaust every avenue of inquiry, no matter how unpromising.” Hardy v.

 Cross, 565 U.S. 65, 71–72 (2011) (citation omitted). Mr. Redfearn does not identify any

 specific steps the prosecution should have but failed to take to secure T.A.’s in-person

 trial testimony. Even if he did, AEDPA “does not permit a federal court to overturn a

 state court’s decision on the question of unavailability merely because the federal court

 identifies additional steps that might have been taken.” Id. at 72. No reasonable juror

 could debate the district court’s conclusion that AEDPA does not entitle Mr. Redfearn to

 relief on this issue.

          Mr. Redfearn also seeks a COA to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence

 supporting his conviction. When reviewing for evidentiary sufficiency, “the relevant

 question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

 prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

 crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The

 OCCA concluded “[t]he circumstantial evidence supporting the charge of rape against

 [Mr.] Redfearn was extremely strong.” Aplt. App. vol. 1 at 123. This evidence included

 DNA evidence, testimony from the investigating detectives, and recordings of

 incriminating statements Mr. Redfearn made in phone calls from jail. Mr. Redfearn does

 not articulate any specific deficiency in the state’s case, nor does he provide any basis to

 conclude the OCCA’s decision was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law.

 So, no reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s denial of habeas relief on this

 issue.

                                               4
Appellate Case: 22-6061   Document: 010110793903      Date Filed: 01/06/2023   Page: 5

                                  CONCLUSION

       We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

                                          Entered for the Court

                                          Joel M. Carson III
                                          Circuit Judge

                                         5