Miller v. Province, 10th Cir. (2013)

FILED
United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
February 4, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RONALD DEWAYNE MILLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
No. 12-5185
(D.C. No. 4:09-CV-00305-GKF-PJC)
(N.D. Oklahoma)
GREG PROVINCE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Applicant Ronald Dewayne Miller, proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma of his
application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B)
(requiring COA to appeal denial of 2254 application). We deny a COA and
dismiss the appeal.
I.
BACKGROUND
In 2006 Applicant was convicted in Oklahoma state court on two counts of
sexually abusing a minor and one count of furnishing alcohol to a minor. He

appealed the convictions and sentences to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals (OCCA). Two grounds for appeal are relevant here. First, Applicant
argued that comments by the prosecutor during closing argument improperly
vouched for the victims credibility. He identified four comments: (1) Shes
making every effort to be honest. To recall. Shes trying to tell you to the best of
her ability this is what happened to me. R., Vol. 1 at 5152 (Br. of Aplt. at 56,
Miller v. State, No. F-2006-1060 (Okla. Crim. App. July 3, 2007)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). (2) She stayed in that shelter because you know why?
It happened. Id. at 52 (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). (3)
Unfortunately, in these types of cases, theres rarely other evidence. Id.
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). (4) Do you think the state
prosecutes people who dont abuse their children? Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). He argued in the alternative that his counsels failure to object to these
comments rendered counsels performance constitutionally deficient.
Second, Applicant argued that questions by the trial judge during voir dire
bolstered the victims credibility and aroused societal alarm, thereby depriving
him of a fair trial. In support of this claim, he pointed to questions concerning
how prospective jurors would feel about a witness who is uncomfortable
testifying to sexual abuse, and to questions concerning whether they thought that
crime is a problem in the community. And he again added that his counsels
failure to object to the questions constituted ineffective assistance.
-2-
The OCCA affirmed. It held that Applicant had failed to show plain error
in the prosecutors comments, that Applicant had not shown prejudice from his
counsels failure to object to the comments, that the trial judges voir dire
questions had not bolstered testimony or aroused societal alarm, and that
Applicant had failed to show either that defense counsels performance in [not
objecting to the questions] was deficient or a reasonable probability that the
outcome of the trial would have been different if counsel would have objected.
Id. at 86 (Summ. Op. at 2, Miller, No. F-2006-1060 (Okla. Crim. App. Mar. 17,
2008)).
Later, Applicant sought postconviction relief in state court on the grounds
of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and actual innocence. The trial
court denied relief, and the OCCA affirmed the denial.
On May 21, 2009, Applicant filed his 2254 application in district court,
asserting three grounds for relief: (1) prosecutorial misconduct (and ineffective
assistance of counsel in failing to object to the alleged misconduct); (2) improper
voir dire questioning by the trial judge (and ineffective assistance of counsel in
failing to object to the questions); and (3) actual innocence. The court denied
relief. In this court Applicant pursues his claims of prosecutorial misconduct,
ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the alleged prosecutorial
misconduct, and improper voir dire questioning by the trial judge.
II.
DISCUSSION
-3-
A COA will issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). This standard
requires a demonstration that . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) 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). In other words, the applicant must
show that the district courts resolution of the constitutional claim was either
debatable or wrong. Id.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA),
provides that when a claim has been adjudicated on the merits in a state court, a
federal court 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, or 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)(1), (2). As we have explained:
Under the contrary to clause, we grant relief only if the state court
arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court
on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently
than the Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.
-4-
Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir. 2004) (brackets and internal
quotation marks omitted). Relief is provided under the unreasonable
application clause only if the state court identifies the correct governing legal
principle from the Supreme Courts decisions but unreasonably applies that
principle to the facts of the prisoners case. Id. (brackets and internal quotation
marks omitted). Thus, a federal court may not issue a habeas writ simply because
it concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision
applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. See id. Rather,
that application must have been unreasonable. Therefore, because the OCCA
adjudicated each of Applicants claims on the merits, AEDPAs deferential
treatment of state court decisions must be incorporated into our consideration of
[his] request for [a] COA. Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 2004).
We now turn to the claims for relief Applicant pursues in this court. As
instances of prosecutorial misconduct, Applicants brief in this court points to the
same comments as did his brief on direct appeal to the OCCA. With one
exception, we agree with the district court that, read in context, the prosecutors
comments were proper comments on the evidence rather than improper vouching
for [the victims] credibility, R., Vol. 1 at 162 (Op. & Order at 6, Miller v.
Province, No. 09-CV-305-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla. Oct. 25, 2012)), and that
therefore AEDPA requires denial of relief with respect to those comments. The
exception is the prosecutors rhetorical question, [D]o you think the State
-5-
prosecutes people who dont abuse their children? Id. That comment, which
refers to the decision to prosecute, was not tied to the evidence at trial; after all,
the decision to prosecute predates the trial. The comment clearly insinuated that
the prosecutor had personal knowledge of guilt aside from hearing the trial
evidence. This was highly improper. See Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339,
359 n.15 (1958) (implying that prosecutors statements would have been improper
if he had insinuated that they were based on personal knowledge or on anything
other than the testimony of [the] witnesses given before the jury); United States
v. Lopez-Medina, 596 F.3d 716, 740 (10th Cir. 2010) (The cardinal rule of
closing argument is that counsel must confine comments to evidence in the record
and to reasonable inferences from that evidence. (brackets and internal quotation
marks omitted)). Nevertheless, we cannot say that the OCCA unreasonably
determined that Applicant had failed to show that the remark deprived him of a
fair trial or that he was prejudiced by his counsels failure to object to it. See
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986) (defendant claiming
prosecutorial misconduct must establish that the prosecutors comments so
infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of
due process (internal quotation marks omitted)); Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 694 (1984) (defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must
establish that he suffered prejudice, meaning that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsels unprofessional errors, the result of the
-6-
proceeding would have been different). Thus, we deny a COA on Applicants

claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffectiveness of counsel.
As to Applicants challenge to the voir dire questions by the trial judge, he
has not persuaded us that there is anything debatable about the district courts
rejection of this claim. The Supreme Court has stressed the wide discretion
granted to the trial court in conducting voir dire in . . . areas of inquiry that might
tend to show juror bias. MuMin v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 427 (1991).
Applicant has not cited to this court any case authority prohibiting the judges
questions. We deny a COA on this issue.
III.
CONCLUSION
We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-7-

Miller v. Province, 10th Cir. (2013)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miller v. Province, 10th Cir. (2013)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miller v. Province, 10th Cir. (2013)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

RONALD DEWAYNE MILLER,

GREG PROVINCE, Warden,

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Applicant Ronald Dewayne Miller, proceeding pro se and in forma

sexually abusing a minor and one count of furnishing alcohol to a minor. He

proceeding would have been different). Thus, we deny a COA on Applicants

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.