Court Opinion

ID: 9352474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 18:00:52.40431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:24.215992
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1180     Document: 010110793955         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
  CHARLES WHITTEN,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 22-1180
                                                      (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00453-DDD)
  DEAN WILLIAMS; THE ATTORNEY                                    (D. Colo.)
  GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
  COLORADO,

        Respondents - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Charles Whitten, proceeding pro se, requests a certificate of appealability (COA)

 to appeal from the district court’s denial of his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas

 application. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

                                     BACKGROUND

        A jury found Mr. Whitten guilty of charges of aggravated robbery and menacing

 (Case No. 10CR3396) arising out of a bank robbery in Colorado Springs. The trial court

 determined he was a habitual criminal and sentenced him to a total of 176 years of

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 22-1180     Document: 010110793955          Date Filed: 01/06/2023        Page: 2

 imprisonment. The Colorado Court of Appeals (CCA) affirmed, and the Colorado

 Supreme Court (CSC) denied certiorari.

        Mr. Whitten then filed a state post-conviction proceeding under Colorado Rule of

 Criminal Procedure 35(c), which the trial court denied. As with the direct appeal, the

 CCA affirmed, and the CSC denied certiorari.

        Mr. Whitten next filed a § 2254 application and then an amended § 2254

 application in federal court. The amended application set forth sixteen claims of

 ineffective assistance of trial counsel and two claims of due process violations. However,

 Mr. Whitten almost immediately withdrew Claims 12 through 16 because he had not

 exhausted them. By order of the federal district court, the state filed a pre-answer

 response addressing potential affirmative defenses for the remaining claims. It asserted

 that the application was not second or successive, that it appeared to be timely, and that

 Mr. Whitten had exhausted Claims 1 through 11 by raising them in his state

 post-conviction appeal and Claims 17 and 18 by raising them in his direct appeal. The

 district court then directed the state to file an answer addressing the remaining claims on

 the merits, and it did so. Ultimately the district court denied the application on the

 merits. Mr. Whitten now seeks a COA to appeal.

                                       DISCUSSION

 I.     COA and Legal Standards

        Mr. Whitten must obtain a COA to appeal from the district court's denial of his

 § 2254 application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). To do so, he must make “a

 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as

                                               2
Appellate Case: 22-1180      Document: 010110793955          Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 3

 here, the district court denied the claims on the merits, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate

 that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

 claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

        Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), our review of

 state-court decisions is deferential. See, e.g., Pacheco v. El Habti, 48 F.4th 1179, 1192

 (10th Cir. 2022). When a state court has adjudicated a claim on the merits, the federal

 courts can grant habeas relief only if the applicant establishes that the state-court decision

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

 law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 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). Also, “a determination of a

 factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct,” and “[t]he applicant

 shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing

 evidence.” Id. § 2254(e)(1). “AEDPA’s deferential treatment of state court decisions

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

 Pacheco, 48 F.4th at 1192 (internal quotation marks omitted).

 II.    Ineffective-Assistance Claims

        Claims 1 through 16 alleged Mr. Whitten’s trial counsel was ineffective. As

 stated, Mr. Whitten withdrew Claims 12 through 16, leaving Claims 1 through 11 for

 adjudication by the federal district court.

                                               3
Appellate Case: 22-1180     Document: 010110793955          Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 4

        A.     Legal Standards

        For ineffective-assistance claims, the “clearly established Federal law” is

 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Under Strickland, a defendant must

 show that (1) “counsel’s performance was deficient,” and (2) “the deficient performance

 prejudiced the defense.” Id. at 687. The performance prong requires a defendant to show

 counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688.

 The prejudice prong requires a showing that “there is a reasonable probability that, but

 for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

 different.” Id. at 694.

        On habeas review, “[t]he question is not whether a federal court believes the state

 court’s determination under the Strickland standard was incorrect but whether that

 determination was unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold.” Knowles v.

 Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further,

 “because the Strickland standard is a general standard, a state court has even more

 latitude to reasonably determine that a defendant has not satisfied that standard.” Id. “A

 state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long

 as fairminded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state court’s decision.”

 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted);

 see also Wood v. Carpenter, 907 F.3d 1279, 1289 (10th Cir. 2018) (“[A] state court’s

 application of federal law is only unreasonable if all fairminded jurists would agree the

 state court decision was incorrect.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

                                              4
Appellate Case: 22-1180     Document: 010110793955         Date Filed: 01/06/2023       Page: 5

        B.     Mr. Whitten is not entitled to a COA.

        The CCA rejected Mr. Whitten’s ineffective-assistance claims by stating:

                Defendant next contends that his trial attorney performed
        ineffectively by failing to (1) adequately present a motion to suppress
        evidence; (2) consult with an expert; (3) adequately cross-examine State
        witnesses; and (4) raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. We reject
        defendant’s claims because defendant cannot meet the prejudice prong of
        Strickland. In other words, defendant cannot show a reasonable probability
        that, but for these omissions by counsel, the outcome of the case would
        have been different.

 R. Vol. I at 359 (citation omitted). The CCA explained that it reached its conclusion

 based on “overwhelming evidence” against Mr. Whitten, id., which it went on to

 describe. It further stated, “Conversely, defendant has come forward with no evidence

 that would have changed the outcome of this case.” Id. at 362.

        The federal district court treated Claims 1 through 3 differently than Claims 4

 through 11. Perceiving that the CCA had not expressly addressed Claims 1 through 3, it

 “looked through” the CCA’s opinion to the decision of the state trial court on those

 claims. Id. Vol. II at 520-22. We disagree with this approach. Consistent with the

 briefing before it, the CCA broadly summarized the first ineffective-assistance claim as

 contending that counsel failed to “adequately present a motion to suppress evidence.” Id.

 Vol. I at 359. As briefed, however, this category included the allegations that counsel

 “fail[ed] to adequately investigate and present the motion to suppress evidence”; failed to

 “adequately challeng[e] the search warrants on the basis of conflicting statements”; and

 “fail[ed] to challenge the recovered gun and case.” Id. at 324-25. These are the

 circumstances addressed in Claims 1 through 3. We therefore see no reason to think that

                                              5
Appellate Case: 22-1180      Document: 010110793955          Date Filed: 01/06/2023      Page: 6

 the CCA’s discussion applies only to Claims 4 through 11. Accordingly, the appropriate

 evaluation for all of the ineffective-assistance claims is the reasonableness of the CCA’s

 determination that Mr. Whitten failed to satisfy Strickland’s prejudice prong.1

        The CCA appropriately identified Strickland as the relevant legal standard, and no

 reasonable jurist would debate whether its decision was contrary to or an unreasonable

 application of Strickland. No reasonable jurist would think it unreasonable for the CCA

 to conclude that Mr. Whitten failed to show prejudice in light of the overwhelming

 evidence in the record. See Mays v. Hines, 141 S. Ct. 1145, 1149 (2021) (faulting federal

 appellate court’s failure to defer to state court’s decision that applicant failed to show

 prejudice in light of overwhelming evidence).

        Further, no reasonable jurist would debate whether the CCA’s decision was an

 unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record. Mr. Whitten extensively

 challenged the ten pieces and categories of evidence the CCA identified. The federal

 district court examined the record, concluding with regard to each piece or category that

 Mr. Whitten had not overcome § 2254(e)(1)’s presumption of correctness. It further

 explained weaknesses in Mr. Whitten’s position, including reliance on speculation and

 conjecture. Before this court, Mr. Whitten again challenges the evidence cited by the

 CCA. But his arguments do not undermine the district court’s thorough examination of

        1
         Any error by the district court in evaluating the state post-conviction court’s
 decision rather than the CCA’s decision for Claims 1 through 3 does not warrant granting
 a COA. Ultimately, no reasonable jurist would debate whether Mr. Whitten is entitled to
 habeas relief on his ineffective-assistance claims under § 2254(d)(1) or (2).
                                               6
Appellate Case: 22-1180      Document: 010110793955           Date Filed: 01/06/2023      Page: 7

 the record. He has not shown that reasonable jurists would debate the determination that

 he failed to overcome the presumption of correctness.

 III.   Due Process Claims

        Claims 17 and 18 alleged due process violations. Mr. Whitten does not request a

 COA for Claim 18, leaving only Claim 17 for our consideration. In Claim 17, he

 challenged the state court’s admission of evidence from a separate witness-intimidation

 case and evidence indicating he was on parole at the time of the robbery.

        Because “federal habeas review is not available to correct state law evidentiary

 errors,” Mr. Whitten “is entitled to relief only if an alleged state-law error was so grossly

 prejudicial that it fatally infected the trial and denied the fundamental fairness that is the

 essence of due process.” Hooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148, 1180 (10th Cir. 2012)

 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Only evidence that “is so extremely

 unfair that its admission violates fundamental conceptions of justice” fails the test of

 “fundamental fairness.” Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990) (internal

 quotation marks omitted). “Because a fundamental-fairness analysis is not subject to

 clearly definable legal elements, when engaged in such an endeavor a federal court must

 tread gingerly and exercise considerable self-restraint.” Duckett v. Mullin, 306 F.3d 982,

 999 (10th Cir. 2002) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

        A.     Evidence of Witness Intimidation

        The CCA upheld, under Colorado Rule of Evidence 404(b), the admission of

 evidence from a separate case charging that Mr. Whitten had intimidated witnesses in the

 robbery case. After describing the evidence, the CCA held, “[t]his evidence that Whitten

                                                7
Appellate Case: 22-1180      Document: 010110793955          Date Filed: 01/06/2023       Page: 8

 attempted to influence the testimony of numerous witnesses who provided significantly

 inculpatory testimony is highly probative of a consciousness of guilt, and therefore highly

 probative that Whitten committed the charged offenses.” R. Vol. I at 283-84. It found

 itself “unable to say that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of

 unfair prejudice,” id. at 282, and it further found that the state “did not exploit the unfair

 prejudice of the evidence,” id. at 284. The federal district court concluded that admitting

 the evidence of witness intimidation did not make Mr. Whitten’s trial fundamentally

 unfair because it “was probative as to the witnesses’ credibility and Mr. Whitten’s

 consciousness of guilt.” Id. Vol. II at 546.

         “[T]he fundamental-fairness inquiry requires [the court] to look at the effect of

 the admission of the evidence within the context of the entire trial. Doing so requires

 weighing the relevance of the challenged evidence against its prejudicial value, in light of

 the other evidence against the petitioner.” Johnson v. Martin, 3 F.4th 1210, 1230

 (10th Cir. 2021) (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,

 142 S. Ct. 1189 (2022). Reasonable jurists would not debate the conclusion that the

 evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial. That is even more true in light of the

 record as a whole. See id. at 1231 (“Where evidence against a defendant is strong, the

 likelihood that erroneously admitted evidence will have an unduly prejudicial impact is

 lessened.”). Further, to the extent Mr. Whitten complains about the failure to give a

 limiting instruction, no reasonable jurist would debate the determination that the omission

 of such an instruction did not make the trial fundamentally unfair.

                                                8
Appellate Case: 22-1180     Document: 010110793955          Date Filed: 01/06/2023      Page: 9

        B.     Evidence Related to Parole Status

        The CCA also upheld, under Colorado Rules of Evidence 402 and 403, the

 admission of evidence that Mr. Whitten was wearing an ankle monitor and was not

 within range of the monitoring box at the time of the robbery. The CCA held that the

 ankle-monitor evidence was admissible as “evidence of Whitten’s whereabouts at the

 time of the robbery.” R. Vol. I at 287. It concluded that the probative value was not

 outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, given that Mr. Whitten’s parole status was

 not mentioned and the exhibits contained only one abbreviated reference to the Colorado

 Department of Corrections. The federal district court held that the admission of evidence

 related to Mr. Whitten’s parole status did not make the trial fundamentally unfair because

 the evidence was relevant and Mr. Whitten failed to show that any prejudice rose to the

 level of being unfair.

        As with the intimidation evidence, reasonable jurists would not debate the

 determination that the ankle-monitoring evidence was relevant and not unduly

 prejudicial. See Johnson, 3 F.4th at 1230. Again, this is particularly true in light of the

 record as a whole. See id. at 1231.

                                       CONCLUSION

        We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We grant Mr. Whitten’s motion to

 proceed without prepayment of costs and fees.

                                                   Entered for the Court

                                                   Bobby R. Baldock
                                                   Circuit Judge

                                               9