Court Opinion

ID: 9930717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 17:00:50.30318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:06.179290
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-5087     Document: 010110996312         Date Filed: 02/07/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            February 7, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  DEZMEN DAESHON SMITH,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                             No. 22-5087
                                                    (D.C. No. 4:19-CV-00187-GKF-CDL)
  SCOTT CROW,                                                    (N.D. Okla.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        Dezmen Daeshon Smith was convicted on one count of first-degree murder by

 an Oklahoma state jury. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed

 the conviction on direct appeal and later affirmed the denial of postconviction relief.

 Mr. Smith then sought relief in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The

 district court denied relief, but this court granted his application for a certificate of

 appealability (COA) on one issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Exercising

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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: 22-5087    Document: 010110996312       Date Filed: 02/07/2024       Page: 2

 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, we affirm on that issue. We deny a

 COA on Mr. Smith’s remaining issues.

 I. Background

       A. Facts

       In February 2015, Mr. Smith and a rival gang member engaged in a shootout at

 a Tulsa barbershop, leaving barber Keith Liggins dead and wounding Sheldon

 Williams, Lawrence Harris, and Randy Pierce. The State of Oklahoma charged

 Mr. Smith with first-degree murder and three counts of assault and battery.

       At trial, several witnesses testified that Mr. Smith shot Mr. Liggins. Mr. Smith

 claimed he had been at work during the shootout. He later contended his co-workers,

 had they been called to testify, would have corroborated that alibi. But a police

 officer testified that he interviewed those co-workers and they told him Mr. Smith

 was not at work when he said he was. In addition, Mr. Smith contended there were

 certain witnesses to the shooting who “knew him and would have identified him as

 the shooter but did not,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 23-24, suggesting that if those

 witnesses were called, they would have confirmed he was not the shooter. Again,

 however, the record shows those witnesses told investigators they did not see the

 shooter and therefore could not have testified whether Mr. Smith was responsible.

       On the third day of trial (a Wednesday) the judge informed the jury that

 Mr. Smith’s counsel was ill and they were losing a day of trial time. Because of that

 delay the trial judge warned the jurors they might have to return the next week for

 deliberations. The prosecutor suggested the alternative of adding a few hours on

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-5087     Document: 010110996312       Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 3

 Thursday and trying to get to a verdict on Friday to avoid returning the following

 week. The trial judge asked the jurors if they agreed with that approach, and the

 transcript reflects that they did.

        The case was submitted to the jury for deliberations on Friday at 5:30 p.m.

 Earlier that afternoon the trial judge had reminded the jury that deliberations would

 extend later into the evening and that the jurors should plan accordingly by using a

 long afternoon break to get food, water, or other items to bring back to the

 courthouse.

        At 6:49 p.m. the jury sent the trial judge a note that read: “What is the

 evidence for which bullets wounded Sheldon [Williams], Lawrence [Harris, and]

 Randy [Pierce]?” Aplt. App. vol. II at 268. The trial judge replied, “You have all the

 law and evidence necessary to reach proper verdicts.” Id.

        At around 10:45 p.m., the jury sent a note to the trial judge seeking further

 direction because four jurors remained undecided and felt there was not enough

 evidence to convict. As a result, the trial judge called the jury back into the

 courtroom and gave an Allen instruction intended to encourage a deadlocked jury to

 reach a verdict. See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-02 (1896). The

 instructions followed an Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instruction (OUJI), except that it

                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-5087       Document: 010110996312        Date Filed: 02/07/2024      Page: 4

 omitted the final two paragraphs. 1 The court did not explain the omission. Neither

 party objected to the giving of the instruction or its content.

        1
            Following is the instruction in its entirety, with the omitted paragraphs

 italicized:

               This case has taken approximately 33 hours of trial time. You have
        deliberated for approximately 5½ hours. You report to me that you are
        experiencing difficulty in arriving at a verdict.

               This is an important case and a serious matter to all concerned. You are the
        exclusive judges of the facts; the court is the judge of the law. Now I most
        respectfully and earnestly request of you that you return to your jury room and
        resume your deliberations. Further open and frank discussion of the evidence and
        law submitted to you in this case may aid you in arriving at a verdict.

               This does not mean that those favoring any particular position should
        surrender their honest convictions as to the weight or effect of any evidence solely
        because of the opinion of other jurors or because of the importance of arriving at a
        decision. No juror should ever agree to a verdict that is contrary to the law in the
        court’s instructions, nor find a fact or concur in a verdict which in good
        conscience he or she believes to be untrue.

                This does mean that you should give respectful consideration to each
        other’s views and talk over any differences of opinion in the spirit of fairness and
        candor. If at all possible, you should resolve any differences and come to a
        common conclusion, that this case may be completed. Each juror should respect
        the opinion of his or her fellow jurors, as he or she would have them respect his or
        hers, in an earnest and diligent effort to arrive at a just verdict under the law and
        the evidence.

               You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the case may require and
        take all the time necessary. The giving of this instruction at this time in no way
        means that it is more important than any other instruction. On the contrary, you
        should consider this instruction together with and as part of the instructions which
        I previously gave you.

               In stating the foregoing, I again repeat: you are the judges of the facts; the
        court is the judge of the law. In making all statements made to you I have not, nor
        do I now, express or intimate, nor indicate, in any way the conclusions to be
                                               4
Appellate Case: 22-5087      Document: 010110996312          Date Filed: 02/07/2024      Page: 5

        The jury resumed deliberations and returned its verdict 90 minutes later. It

 found Mr. Smith guilty of first-degree murder of Mr. Liggins and not guilty on the

 three counts of assault and battery. The trial court sentenced Mr. Smith to life

 imprisonment, as recommended by the jury.

        B. Postconviction Proceedings

        Mr. Smith appealed the judgment and sentence to the OCCA. He argued,

 among other things, that the Allen instruction was impermissibly coercive. The

 OCCA rejected Mr. Smith’s appeal.

        Two-and-a-half years after his conviction, Mr. Smith filed an application for

 postconviction relief in Oklahoma state court. The court denied the application, and

 the OCCA affirmed.

        Mr. Smith then filed an application for relief under § 2254 in federal district

 court. In a comprehensive 49-page order, the district court denied Mr. Smith’s

 application and denied a COA. He then sought from this court a COA on three

 claims that he wished to raise on appeal: (1) the Allen instruction was impermissibly

 coercive; (2) his state-court appellate counsel was ineffective for not investigating

 and raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to raise an

        reached by you in this case, nor do I intend in any way or manner to coerce a
        verdict, nor directly or indirectly to force a verdict in this case. I only ask that you
        return to your jury room and, again, diligently and earnestly under your oaths
        resume your deliberations.

 OUJI-CR 10-11 (emphasis added).

                                               5
Appellate Case: 22-5087      Document: 010110996312          Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 6

 alibi defense; and (3) cumulative errors rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. We

 granted a COA on the Allen claim.

        We now turn to the merits of that claim and Mr. Smith’s remaining requests

 for a COA.

 II. Discussion

        A. Allen Claim

               1. Standard of Review

        We review the district court’s legal analysis de novo, but in doing so “we remain

 bound by the constraints of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)

 of 1996.” Johnson v. Martin, 3 F.4th 1210, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2021). Where the state

 court has adjudicated a habeas claim on the merits, we are precluded from granting relief

 unless the adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an

 unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

 Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or “was based on an unreasonable

 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

 proceeding,” id. § 2254(d)(2). Mr. Smith argues the OCCA’s conclusion that the verdict

 was not coerced is “contrary to the facts and an unreasonable application of the law under

 Allen and Lowenfield [v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988)].” Aplt. Opening Br. at 19.

        The Supreme Court has explained that the “contrary to” and “unreasonable

 application” clauses of § 2254(d)(1) should be accorded independent meaning. Williams

 v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404–05 (2000). A decision is contrary to Supreme Court

 precedent if (1) “the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth

                                               6
Appellate Case: 22-5087      Document: 010110996312           Date Filed: 02/07/2024        Page: 7

 in [the Supreme Court’s] cases,” or (2) “the state court confronts a set of facts that are

 materially indistinguishable from a decision of th[e] Court and nevertheless arrives at a

 result different from [the Supreme Court’s] precedent.” Id. at 405–06. In contrast, a

 decision involves an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent if the

 “state-court decision . . . correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it

 unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner’s case.” Id. at 407-08. “[A]n

 unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of

 federal law.” Id. at 410. “[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply

 because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court

 decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather,

 that application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 411.

        Under § 2254(d)(2), “a state-court factual determination is not unreasonable

 merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in

 the first instance.” Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010). A state-court factual

 determination is entitled to deference if “reasonable minds reviewing the record

 might disagree about the finding in question.” Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305, 314

 (2015) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, under

 § 2254(e)(1), we must presume a state court’s factual determinations are correct, and

 Mr. Smith bears the burden of rebutting that presumption by clear and convincing

 evidence. See Sumpter v. Kansas, 61 F.4th 729, 741 (10th Cir. 2023). 2

        2
         This court has observed that “[t]he Supreme Court has not yet defined the
 precise relationship between § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1).” Johnson v. Martin,
                                                7
Appellate Case: 22-5087    Document: 010110996312         Date Filed: 02/07/2024    Page: 8

              2. Merits

       The use of an Allen instruction to encourage a deadlocked jury to reach a

 verdict “has long been sanctioned.” Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 237 (citing Allen,

 164 U.S. 492). Such an instruction:

       encourage[s] unanimity (without infringement upon the conscientious
       views of each individual juror) by urging each juror to review and
       reconsider the evidence in the light of the views expressed by other
       jurors, in a manner evincing a conscientious search for truth rather than
       a dogged determination to have one’s own way in the outcome of the
       deliberative process.

 United States v. Smith, 857 F.2d 682, 683-84 (10th Cir. 1988).

       In determining whether an Allen instruction unconstitutionally coerced a jury,

 the Supreme Court has held that a reviewing court must view the instruction “in its

 context and under all the circumstances.” Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 237 (internal

 quotation marks omitted). Lowenfield is the only Supreme Court case that has

 addressed the constitutional rule against coercive jury instructions, 3 see Wong v.

 Smith, 131 S. Ct. 10, 11 (2010) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), and

 because its guiding principle is quite general, state courts have greater leeway in

 3 F.4th 1210, 1218 n.4 (10th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).
 Mr. Smith does not contend that § 2254(e)(1) is inapplicable to our review of the
 OCCA’s adjudication of his claim, so we presume he must satisfy both standards.
       3
          Although the district court applied the four-factor test in Gilbert v. Mullin,
 302 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2002), that decision “sets forth the factors under which a
 federal appellate court reviews the supplemental jury instructions used by a federal
 district court,” and “is [a] higher [standard] than our more deferential review
 pursuant to AEDPA,” id. at 1173 n.3. We therefore need not consider that test
 separately.
                                             8
Appellate Case: 22-5087    Document: 010110996312       Date Filed: 02/07/2024      Page: 9

 addressing coercion claims, see Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 776 (2010) (“[T]he

 more general the rule at issue—and thus the greater the potential for reasoned

 disagreement among fair-minded judges—the more leeway state courts have in

 reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations.” (brackets and internal quotation

 marks omitted)).

       In Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 234-35, the trial court learned during the jury’s

 sentencing deliberations that 11 jurors believed further deliberations would enable

 them to arrive at a verdict, and one believed otherwise. It therefore gave the

 following supplemental instruction:

             Ladies and Gentlemen, as I instructed you earlier if the jury is
       unable to unanimously agree on a recommendation the Court shall
       impose a sentence of Life Imprisonment . . . .

              When you enter the jury room it is your duty to consult with one
       another to consider each other’s views and to discuss the evidence with
       the objective of reaching a just verdict if you can do so without violence
       to that individual judgment.

              Each of you must decide the case for yourself but only after
       discussion and impartial consideration of the case with your fellow
       jurors. You are not advocates for one side or the other. Do not hesitate
       to reexamine your own views and to change your opinion if you are
       convinced you are wrong but do not surrender your honest belief as to
       the weight and effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your
       fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.

 Id. at 235 (internal quotation marks omitted). Within 30 minutes of receiving the

 instruction, the jury returned with a verdict. Id.

       The Supreme Court held that under these circumstances the instruction was not

 unconstitutionally coercive. Id. at 241. The Court observed that the trial court’s

                                             9
Appellate Case: 22-5087       Document: 010110996312          Date Filed: 02/07/2024       Page: 10

  Allen instruction, which was directed to all members of the jury, was even less

  coercive than the one approved in Allen itself, which specifically addressed the jurors

  in the minority. Id. at 237-38; compare Allen, 164 U.S. at 501 (trial court instructed

  that “if . . . the larger number [of jurors] were for conviction, a dissenting juror

  should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one”). Although the Court

  acknowledged the 30-minute interval between the instruction and the verdict

  “suggests the possibility of coercion,” the defense counsel’s failure to object to the

  instruction “indicates that the potential for coercion argued now was not apparent to

  one on the spot.” Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 240. The Court further noted the trial

  court’s inquiry to the jury was not coercive because it was an “inquiry . . . not as to

  how they stood on the merits of the verdict, but how they stood on the question of

  whether further deliberations might assist them in returning a verdict.” Id.

         We agree with the district court that the OCCA’s holding that the Allen

  instruction was not unconstitutionally coercive was neither contrary to nor an

  unreasonable application of Lowenfield. As in Lowenfield, the trial court here did not

  direct the Allen instruction only to the four jurors in the minority. Rather, it

  encouraged all the jurors “to give respectful consideration to each other’s views . . . in

  an earnest or diligent effort to arrive at a just verdict under the law,” Aplt. App. vol. II at

  256—if they could do so without “surrender[ing] their honest convictions as to the

  weight or effect of any evidence,” id. at 255. In addition, the 90-minute interval between

  the Allen instruction and the jury’s verdict, which is substantially longer than in

  Lowenfield, does not suggest coercion. See, e.g., United States v. Arney, 248 F.3d 984,

                                                10
Appellate Case: 22-5087       Document: 010110996312          Date Filed: 02/07/2024       Page: 11

  990 (10th Cir. 2001) (finding no coercion in federal prosecution when jury reached

  verdict about an hour after receiving instruction). And, as in Lowenfield, the defense did

  not object to the instruction, “indicat[ing] that the potential for coercion . . . was not

  apparent to one on the spot.” Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 240. Finally, the trial judge in

  Mr. Smith’s case made no inquiry or poll as to the jury’s division on the merits, and

  addressed the Allen instruction to the entire jury. Although the trial judge knew of the

  numeric division of the jury because of a note from the jury, the judge ameliorated any

  concern about unduly pressuring the four minority jurors by addressing the Allen

  instruction to the entire jury. See id. at 237-38.

         Mr. Smith nonetheless argues the OCCA’s decision unreasonably applied clearly

  established federal law. He makes much of the fact that the trial judge omitted the last

  two paragraphs of Oklahoma’s standard Allen instruction. But the instructions in

  Lowenfield did not contain the paragraphs the trial court omitted here, and Mr. Smith has

  not pointed to any precedent suggesting such an omission renders an Allen instruction

  coercive. More to the point, as the district court noted, the Allen instruction in this case

  contained the same elements as the instruction approved by the Supreme Court in

  Lowenfield. It encouraged the jurors to respectfully consider each other’s views in an

  earnest effort to arrive at a just verdict, but cautioned against surrendering honestly held

  convictions for the sake of reaching a verdict. See United States v. McElhiney, 275 F.3d

  928, 944 (10th Cir. 2001) (in addressing the propriety of an Allen instruction in federal

  prosecution, “the admonition on conscientiously held convictions [is] of great import”).

                                                11
Appellate Case: 22-5087      Document: 010110996312          Date Filed: 02/07/2024      Page: 12

         Mr. Smith also asserts that the OCCA unreasonably applied Lowenfield because

  the trial court gave the Allen instruction late in the evening and the jurors were “likely

  tired after three days of testimony, and hungry as the hour approached 11:00 p.m. on a

  Friday night.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 16. It is true that the instruction in Lowenfield was

  not given to the jury late in the evening. See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 234-35. But we

  agree with the district court that the OCCA reasonably determined there was no evidence

  that hunger or weariness resulted in a coerced verdict. First, the trial judge had warned

  the jurors that deliberations would extend into the evening and that they should plan

  accordingly by using a long break to get water and food. Second, two days earlier

  the judge had raised the prospect that because of an unexpected delay, the jury would

  have to return the next week for deliberations. The transcript reflects that the jury

  expressed a preference to stay late to try to get to a verdict by Friday to avoid having

  to return the next week. Thus, under the circumstances, the lateness of the hour does

  not suggest the jury “was so hungry and ready to leave that they disregarded their

  oaths and instructions.” Aplt. App. vol. I at 32. Indeed, as the OCCA reasonably

  concluded, the fact that the jury continued to deliberate for 90 minutes after the Allen

  instruction indicates the opposite. Id.

         Finally, Mr. Smith argues the jury rendered a compromise verdict and that the

  OCCA failed to take that circumstance into account. But it is far from clear that the

  verdict was the result of compromise rather than just the uncertainty of evidence

  about a confused event. As the district court noted, the jury’s first note to the trial

  judge inquired about “the evidence for which bullets wounded [the three surviving

                                               12
Appellate Case: 22-5087     Document: 010110996312        Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 13

  victims].” Aplt. App. vol. II at 268. The jury’s note and its subsequent verdict

  indicates that while the jurors were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a bullet

  from Mr. Smith’s rifle killed Mr. Liggins, they were not as convinced that the other

  three victims were shot by Mr. Smith.

        B. Remaining Claims

        We deny a COA on Mr. Smith’s two remaining claims. To receive a COA,

  Mr. Smith must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,”

  28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and must show “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). When the

  district court has denied § 2254 relief on the merits, we must determine as part of our

  COA analysis whether reasonable jurists could debate the court’s decision in light of

  AEDPA deference to the state-court decision. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

  322, 336 (2003).

               1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

        Mr. Smith contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate

  counsel because counsel did not investigate and pursue a claim that trial counsel was

  ineffective for failure to raise an alibi defense. We are not persuaded.

        To prevail on the merits of his ineffective-assistance claim, Mr. Smith must

  show that his appellate counsel (1) “was objectively unreasonable in failing to raise

  or properly present a claim on direct appeal,” and (2) “there is a reasonable

                                             13
Appellate Case: 22-5087     Document: 010110996312        Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 14

  probability that, but for this unreasonable failure, the claim would have resulted in

  relief on direct appeal.” Fairchild v. Trammell, 784 F.3d 702, 715 (10th Cir. 2015).

        Mr. Smith cannot point to any evidence to support his alibi claim. He does not

  really dispute that; rather, he argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing at

  which he could have developed the supporting evidence. But evidentiary hearings in

  habeas proceedings are not supposed to be fishing expeditions. “The federal district

  court should not be required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a claim when the

  applicant for relief has not presented evidence that would be readily available if the

  claim were true.” Cannon v. Mullin, 383 F.3d 1152, 1177 (10th Cir. 2004). The

  witnesses identified by Mr. Smith as potential sources for his alibi are all individuals

  personally known to him. One would think that he could have easily obtained

  affidavits from them. He has not explained why that would have been a problem.

  Given this lack of diligence in presenting his evidentiary case, there was no error in

  denying an evidentiary hearing.

        Mr. Smith has utterly failed to show a factual basis for his ineffectiveness

  claim. He has not shown that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s

  denial of that claim, and we accordingly deny a COA on the claim.

               2. Cumulative Error

        Mr. Smith asserts that cumulative errors rendered his trial fundamentally

  unfair. The OCCA rejected this claim on direct appeal. “Cumulative-error analysis

  in the federal habeas context applies only where there are two or more actual

  constitutional errors.” Thacker v. Workman, 678 F.3d 820, 849 (10th Cir. 2012)

                                             14
Appellate Case: 22-5087     Document: 010110996312        Date Filed: 02/07/2024    Page: 15

  (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court rejected this claim

  because Mr. Smith had not shown that the trial court committed any constitutional

  errors. No reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s resolution of this claim,

  particularly in light of the deference owed the OCCA under AEDPA. Accordingly,

  we deny a COA on this claim.

  III. Conclusion

        We affirm the district court’s rejection of Mr. Smith’s Allen claim and deny a

  COA on all remaining issues.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Harris L Hartz
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             15