Court Opinion

ID: 9948176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 17:01:50.26263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:17.828121
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-8061      Document: 010111010740          Date Filed: 03/06/2024        Page: 1
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                              Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                                March 6, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                               Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                   Clerk of Court
  WILLIAM MICHAEL CROTHERS,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                              No. 23-8061
                                                        (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-00268-SWS)
  BRIDGET HILL, Wyoming Attorney                                   (D. Wyo.)
  General,

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

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

        Petitioner William Michael Crothers seeks a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”)

 to challenge the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of

 habeas corpus. We deny Mr. Crothers’ request for a COA and dismiss this matter.

                                          BACKGROUND

        In February of 2020, Mr. Crothers was convicted in a Wyoming circuit court of

 two counts of unlawful contact and one count of hosting a house party where minors

 were present. The charges emanated from Mr. Crothers’ conduct at a party thrown in his

 home by his high-school-aged son, involving alcohol and marijuana. See Wyo. Stat.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-8061     Document: 010111010740          Date Filed: 03/06/2024     Page: 2

 §§ 6-2-501(g)(i), 6-4-406(a). In April of 2020, he was sentenced to 60-days

 imprisonment for each conviction, to be served concurrently with 30 days suspended. His

 sentence further included fines, restitution, and six months of “unsupervised probation.”

 App. at 28. Following sentencing, Mr. Crothers was permitted to remain free after

 posting an appeal bond.

        With the assistance of retained counsel, Mr. Crothers then pursued a direct appeal

 to the Teton County District Court for the Ninth Judicial District, asserting, among other

 things, that the prosecution committed a Brady1 violation by failing to disclose immunity

 agreements entered into between the prosecution and certain witnesses who testified at

 his trial (teenagers who had consumed alcohol and/or marijuana at the party).2 See Brady

 v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

        On October 18, 2022, the state court affirmed his convictions. With respect to

 Mr. Crothers’ Brady arguments, the state court held that “the evidence shows that the

        1
         A Brady violation has three essential elements: “The evidence at issue must be
 favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that
 evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and
 prejudiced must have ensued.” Douglas v. Workman, 560 F.3d 1156, 1173 (10th
 Cir. 2009) (quoting Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 (2004)).
        2
         The state court noted that law enforcement had assured all of the underage
 partygoers that they would not face charges for their underage consumption of alcohol
 and unlawful consumption of cannabis, and in fact did not prosecute “any of the teenaged
 partygoers, even those who did not testify on behalf of the State.” App. at 125. Because
 this promise not to prosecute was extended to all partygoers, the state court implied that
 such promises were “unilateral” and therefore unlikely to amount to immunity
 agreements that qualify as Brady material. See id. at 128–29. But the state court, “[o]ut of
 an abundance of caution, giving all benefit to” Mr. Crothers, “view[ed] the promises not
 to prosecute as immunity agreements.” Id. at 129.
                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-8061      Document: 010111010740         Date Filed: 03/06/2024      Page: 3

 [prosecution] disclosed the immunity agreements to the Defense,” and that even if the

 evidence showed otherwise, Mr. Crothers could not establish that the prosecution’s

 withholding of the immunity agreements was material to the outcome of his trial because

 he had amply called the witnesses’ credibility into doubt at trial by repeatedly telling the

 jury that law enforcement had promised not to prosecute the witnesses. App. at 129–30.

 Following the state court’s affirmance of his convictions, Mr. Crothers petitioned the

 Wyoming Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and on November 22, 2022, that court

 denied the petition.

        Having exhausted his state remedies,3 Mr. Crothers filed this habeas petition in

 federal district court, asserting the prosecution’s alleged Brady violation as the sole basis

 for relief. Mr. Crothers and the Respondent filed cross motions for summary judgment,

 and on August 1, 2023, the district court denied Mr. Crothers’ motion and granted the

 Respondent’s. The district court ruled that the state court did not render an unreasonable

 determination of the facts by concluding the prosecution had, in fact, disclosed the

 existence of immunity agreements with testifying witnesses. The district court further

 concluded that the state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable

 application of, clearly established federal law.

        In so holding, the district court noted that Mr. Crothers’ counsel repeatedly told

 the convicting jury that the testifying witnesses had been granted “immunity” from

        3
          In his habeas petition, Mr. Crothers alleged, and the Respondent admitted, that
 Wyoming’s post-conviction relief scheme is available only to persons convicted of
 felonies, and because Mr. Crothers’ convictions are misdemeanors, he has exhausted his
 state remedies by exhausting his direct appeals. See Wyo. Stat. § 7-14-101(b).
                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-8061      Document: 010111010740          Date Filed: 03/06/2024     Page: 4

 prosecution, including in his opening statement and in his cross-examination of the law

 enforcement officer who promised the teenage partygoers they would not face charges by

 speaking with him. Id. at 248–50, 252.

        Having resolved the motions for summary judgment, the district court denied

 Mr. Crothers’ § 2254 petition and denied him a COA. Mr. Crothers now seeks a COA

 from this court.

                                             ANALYSIS

                     A.     Jurisdiction: Certificate of Appealability

        Absent a COA, we are without jurisdiction to review a petition for a writ of habeas

 corpus. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). Under 28 U.S.C.

 § 2253(c)(2), “[a] certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made

 a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” A habeas petitioner makes

 this substantial showing by demonstrating “that reasonable jurists would find the district

 court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Miller-El, 537 U.S.

 at 338 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). “In evaluating whether an

 applicant has satisfied this burden, we undertake ‘a preliminary, though not definitive,

 consideration of the [legal] framework’ applicable to each of the claims.” United States v.

 Parker, 720 F.3d 781, 785 (10th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Miller-El, 537

 U.S. at 338). And where, as here, a state court adjudicated the petitioner’s constitutional

 claims on their merits, the deference accorded to state-court determinations under the

 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) “must be

                                               4
Appellate Case: 23-8061      Document: 010111010740          Date Filed: 03/06/2024      Page: 5

 incorporated into our consideration of a habeas petitioner’s request for a COA.” See

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

        In sum, to establish his entitlement to a COA before this court, Mr. Crothers must

 show that reasonable jurists could debate the federal district court’s conclusion that the

 state court’s adjudication of his Brady claim neither (1) “resulted in a decision that was

 contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,

 as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” nor (2) “resulted in a decision

 that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

 presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

                  B.     Mr. Crothers’ Arguments in Support of a COA

        While Mr. Crothers’ arguments in support of a COA are not entirely clear, it

 appears that he takes issue only with the district court’s conclusion that the state court’s

 decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Specifically,

 Mr. Crothers asserts that there “is absolutely no evidence in the [state court] record that

 the Prosecutor” in fact disclosed the immunity agreements to defense counsel.

 Appellant’s Br. at 8.

        The federal district court rejected this argument by pointing to the lead

 prosecutor’s affidavit submitted to the state court attesting that he had told Mr. Crothers’

 trial counsel that he had promised the teenage witnesses he would not prosecute them for

 underage drinking or cannabis use. The district court noted that the state court found

 nothing in that affidavit was undermined by anything in the record, and that Mr. Crothers

 did not challenge the veracity of that affidavit.

                                               5
Appellate Case: 23-8061     Document: 010111010740          Date Filed: 03/06/2024      Page: 6

        Reasonable jurists could not disagree that the district court faithfully applied the

 relevant standards to conclude Mr. Crothers did not establish that the state court made an

 unreasonable determination of the facts by concluding the immunity agreements were in

 fact disclosed by the prosecution to Mr. Crothers’ defense counsel before trial.

                                          CONCLUSION

        For the reasons above, we DENY Mr. Crothers’ request for a COA and DISMISS

 this matter.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               Carolyn B. McHugh
                                               Circuit Judge

                                               6