Smith vs. Dorsey, No. 05-2027 (10th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 12, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT TY RO N E SM ITH , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e ll a n t, v. No. 05-2027 ( D . N e w M e x ic o ) D O N A LD D O RSEY , W arden, ( D .C . N o . C IV - 0 4 - 2 6 1 - M C A / L F G ) P l a in t i f f - A p p e ll e e . ORDER AND JUDGM ENT* B e f o r e H E N R Y , S E Y M O U R , a n d T Y M K O V I C H , C i r c u it J u d g e s . T yr o n e S m i t h , a N e w M e x ic o s t a te p r i s o n e r s e r v i n g a li f e s e n te n c e a p p e a l s t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t s d i s m i s s a l o f h is p e ti t i o n f il e d p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 . M r . S m i t h w a s c o n v i c t e d o f f i r s t - d e g r e e m u r d e r , c o n s p i r a c y, a n d tw o c o u n ts o f ta m p e r i n g w i t h e v id e n c e . T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t a d o p te d th e f i n d i n g s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t io n s o f t h e m a g i s tr a t e j u d g e a n d d e n i e d M r . * T h i s o r d e r a n d ju d g m e n t i s n o t b i n d i n g p r e c e d e n t, e x c e p t u n d e r t h e d o c t r in e s o f l a w o f t h e c a s e , r e s j u d i c a t a , a n d c o l la t e r a l e s t o p p e l . T h e c o u r t g e n e ra ll y d i s f a v o rs t h e c it a ti o n o f o r d e r s a n d ju d g m e n ts ; n e v e rt h e le s s , a n o r d e r a n d j u d g m e n t m a y b e c i te d u n d e r t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i ti o n s o f 1 0 t h C i r. R . 36.3. S m i th s h a b e a s p e t it io n a n d a l s o d e n i e d M r . S m i th s r e q u e s t f o r a C e r t if i c a t e o f A p p e a l a b i l it y ( C O A ) . A p a n e l o f t h i s c o u r t g r a n t e d M r . S m i t h r e q u e s t f o r a C O A p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U .S . C . § 2 2 5 3 o n s e v e ra l c o n t e n t io n s , i n c l u d i n g f o u r in e f f e c t i v e a s s i s ta n c e c l a i m s , t w o d u e p r o c e s s c la im s , a C o n f r o n t a ti o n C l a u s e v io l a ti o n , a n d c u m u l a ti v e e rr o r . 1 F o r s u b s t a n ti a ll y t h e s a m e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h b y t h e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e , w e d e n y M r . S m i t h s h a b e a s p e ti t i o n . I. B AC KG RO U N D A . Procedural posture A fter a nine-day jury trial held in N ew M exico state court in S e p t e m b e r 1 9 9 5 , t h e ju r y c o n v ic te d M r . S m i t h o f f ir s t - d e g r e e m u r d e r o f J e r o l Y o u n g e r , c o n s p i r a c y, a n d t w o c o u n t s o f t a m p e r i n g w i t h e v i d e n c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f N .M . S ta t. A n n . § 3 0 - 2 - 1 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( 1 9 9 4 ) , i d . § 3 0 - 2 8 - 2 ( B ) ( 1 ) (1979), id. § 30-22-5 (1963). The state trial court sentenced M r. Sm ith to l i f e p lu s t w e lv e ye a rs . T h e N e w M e x ic o S u p r e m e C o u r t r e je c te d h is d i r e c t a p p e a l ; t h e s t a te d is t r i c t c o u r t d e n ie d M r . S m i t h s p o s t c o n v ic ti o n p e ti t i o n f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s , a n d th e N e w M e x ic o S u p r e m e C o u r t a n d th e U n i t e d S t a te s S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d h is p e ti t i o n f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i . M r . S m i t h h a s 1 W e n o te th a t M r . S m i t h s o u g h t , a n d w a s g r a n te d , a C O A o n a B r a d y claim and several Confrontation Clause claim s that he has chosen not to r a is e b e f o r e u s . -2- e x h a u s t e d e a c h o f h i s c l a i m s b e f o r e th e s t a t e c o u r ts . B. Statement of Facts T h e N e w M e x ic o S u p r e m e C o u r t p r o v i d e d th e f o ll o w i n g f a c t u a l b a c k g ro u n d w h e n it r e je c te d th e d ir e c t a p p e a l s o f M r . S m i t h a n d h is c o defendant M r. Brown: O n Septem ber 14, 1992, the body of Jerol Younger, an A ir Force sergeant stationed at Kirtland A ir Force base, was found in a n ir r i g a ti o n d i t c h in s o u t h A l b u q u e r q u e . H e h a d b e e n s tr a n g le d and beaten to death. Younger allegedly w as a drug dealer in A l b u q u e r q u e u p u n ti l t h e ti m e o f h is d e a th . D enise Spikes and Frank Lucero w ere the tw o main p r o s e c u ti o n w i t n e s s e s . T h e s to r i e s t h e y t o l d p r o v i d e d th e th e o r y o f t h e S t a te 's c a s e . S p i k e s t e s t i f ie d a s f o l l o w s . S h e a n d Y o u n g e r h a d b e e n m a r r i e d a t o n e ti m e a n d h a d a s o n t o g e th e r . S p i k e s t e s t i f ie d t h a t Y o u n g e r d i s l i k e d th e in t i m a te r e la ti o n s h i p t h a t h a d d e v e l o p e d between Spikes and D efendant Smith. A ccording to Spikes, D efendant Smith and Spikes decided to resolve the relationship w i t h Y o u n g e r b y g o i n g t o t a lk t o h i m . S p i k e s c a ll e d Y o u n g e r f r o m a pay phone in A lbuquerque and asked him to come and get her. The two drove to Lucero s house, a small, free-standing room in A l b u q u e r q u e ' s S o u t h V a l le y, w h e r e D e f e n d a n t s a n d L u c e r o w e r e w a it i n g . W h e n S p i k e s k n o c k e d o n th e d o o r , Y o u n g e r w a s g r a b b e d a n d ta k e n in t o t h e h o u s e , a n d S p i k e s r e m a i n e d o u ts i d e . S h e t e s t i f ie d s h e h e a r d Y o u n g e r s c r e a m a n d s h e r a n to a n e a r b y p a y phone. Defendant Smith, how ever, came to get her, apparently b e f o re s h e w a s a b le t o p h o n e f o r h e lp . W h e n s h e a rr i v e d b a c k a t L u c e ro 's h o u s e , Y o u n g e r w a s g o n e , a s w a s h i s c a r. D e f e n d a n t Sm ith w ent into the house for a few minutes, came out, and he and S p i k e s w e n t t o h i s m o t h e r s h o m e . S e v e r a l w e e k s l a te r , S p i k e s a s k e d D e f e n d a n t S m i t h i f h e h a d k i l le d Y o u n g e r a n d h e d e n i e d i t . L u c e ro , w h o w a s i n t h e r o o m a t t h e ti m e o f th e k il l i n g , t e s ti f i e d a s f o l l o w s . H e s a i d t h a t h e w a s a t h i s g i rl f r ie n d 's h o u s e w hen D efendant Smith came to the door and said that he needed to g o t o L u c e r o 's h o u s e b e c a u s e s o m e o n e w a s g o i n g t o p i c k u p a television. Lucero testified that he got into a Blazer belonging to D e f e n d a n t S m i th s m o t h e r , in w h i c h S p i k e s a n d D e f e n d a n t s w e r e -3- s e a te d . T h e y d r o v e to L u c e ro 's h o u s e a n d e n te r e d . L u c e ro t e s t i f ie d t h a t D e f e n d a n t S m i t h a n d S p i k e s le f t , a n d D e f e n d a n t S m i t h returned alone w ith a television, w hich he placed in the closet. L u c e ro s t a te d t h a t h e h e a r d a c a r d r i v e u p , a n d h e a r d t w o v o i c e s ; h e r e c o g n i z e d o n e a s t h e v o i c e o f S p ik e s , a n d t h e o t h e r a s m a l e . T h e m a n e n te r e d , a n d D e f e n d a n t S m i t h t o l d t h e m a n t h a t t h e te le v is i o n w a s i n t h e c lo s e t. W h e n h e w e n t t o t h e c l o s e t, D e f e n d a n ts a tt a c k e d the man w ith hammers. Lucero testified that Spikes w as w alking in a t th e t im e , b u t th a t th e d o o r m u s t h a v e c l o s e d o n h e r . L u c e r o testified that Defendant Brow n retrieved a gun from a bag and held it on the man w hile D efendant Smith tied him. Defendant Smith t h e n t o l d L u c e ro t o p u t o n g l o v e s , t a k e t h e m a n 's c a r k e ys , a n d g e t r i d o f t h e c a r . L u c e r o d i d s o . A f te r w a r d s , D e f e n d a n t S m it h f o u n d L u c e ro a n d b r o u g h t h i m b a c k to h i s h o u s e . T h e m a n w a s s t i l l o n t h e f lo o r a t L u c e ro s h o m e . T h e th r e e m e n l o a d e d th e b o d y i n t o a tr u c k a n d d u m p e d h i s b o d y i n a d it c h . F o l l o w i n g t h e m u r d e r , L u c e ro b e c a m e v e ry a n x io u s a r o u n d po lice of ficers. A ccording to Lucero s cousin, D enise P u r c e l l- A b e yt a , a n d h e r r o o m m a t e , M a t il d a G o n z a l e s , L u c e r o a d m i t t e d to k i l l i n g Y o u n g e r b e c a u s e h e o w e d Y o u n g e r m o n e y f o r d r u g s . S h o r t l y a f te r t h i s , p o l i c e a tte m p t e d t o s e a rc h L u c e ro 's h o m e , b u t it h a d b e e n b u r n e d d o w n . I n t h e r e m a i n s o f t h e h o u s e , h o w e v e r , t h e p o li c e f o u n d a h a m m e r h e a d a n d h a n d l e , p l a s t i c b a g s , d u c t t a p e , a n d c o r d s s i m il a r t o t h o s e u s e d t o t i e u p Y o u n g e r . A r o u n d t h e t i m e o f th e s e a rc h , b o t h L u c e ro a n d D e f e n d a n t S m i t h l e f t t h e s t a te a n d t r a v e l e d t o S a n D i e g o t o v i s it S p i k e s . I n S a n D i e g o , L u c e ro s t a ye d w i t h h i s a u n t, L i n d a S a to m b a . W h e n p o l i c e l o c a t e d S a t o m b a , s h e i n i ti a l l y d e n i e d k n o w i n g h i s w hereabouts. Later, though, she told police Lucero had related to h e r a s t o r y s i m i l a r to h i s t r i a l t e s t i m o n y. A c c o rd i n g t o S a t o m b a , L u c e ro n e v e r a d m i t t e d to k i l l i n g Y o u n g e r . S a to m b a te s t i f ie d a t t r i a l r e g a rd i n g L u c e r o ' s s t a te m e n t s . H e r t e s t i m o n y w a s a d m i t t e d u n d e r t h e p r i o r c o n s i s t e n t s t a te m e n t r u l e . L u c e ro w a s g i v e n tr a n s a c ti o n a l i m m u n i t y a n d S p i k e s w a s g i v e n u s e im m u n i t y t o t e s t i f y a t t r i a l. D e f e n d a n ts w e r e c o n v ic te d o f f i r s t d e g r e e d e l ib e r a t e i n t e n t m u r d e r , c o n s p i r a c y t o c o m m i t f i r s t d e g r e e m u r d e r , a n d t w o c o u n t s o f e v i d e n c e t a m p e r in g . T h e y w e r e s e n t e n c e d t o l if e i m p r is o n m e n t p lu s t w e l v e ye a r s . N e w M e x ic o v . B r o w n , 9 6 9 P .2 d 3 1 3 , 3 1 7 - 1 8 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . -4- II. D ISC USSIO N T h i s c o u r t g r a n te d M r . S m i t h a C O A o n e ig h t i s s u e s : I s s u e s ( 1 ) t h r o u g h ( 4 ) i n v o l v e i n e f f e c t iv e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l f o r c o u n s e l s f a i lu r e (1) to move to exclude M r. Lucero s testimony because his immunity a g r e e m e n t w a s i m p e r m i s s i b l y c o e rc iv e ; ( 2 ) t o r e q u e s t a li m i t i n g i n s t r u c ti o n regarding M r. Lucero s prior consistent statem ents to M s. Satomba; (3) to p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t w o u l d h a v e s h o w n t h a t M s . S p i k e s m o t iv e t o li e a r o s e b e f o r e s h e m a d e c e r ta i n p r io r c o n s i s te n t s t a t e m e n t s t o M s . J im e n e s a n d M s . O G r a d y; a n d ( 4 ) t o o b j e c t u n d e r N M R A 1 1 - 4 0 3 t o t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g M s . S p i k e s p r i o r i n c o n s i s te n t s ta t e m e n t s . T h e r e m a i n i n g c o n t e n t i o n s a r e ( 5 ) M r . L u c e r o s im m u n i t y a g r e e m e n t v io l a te d M r . S m i t h s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s b e c a u s e it w a s i m p e r m i s s i b l y c o e rc iv e ; ( 6 ) N e w M e x ic o s t h e o r y o f a d m i s s ib i li ty r e g a r d i n g M s . S a t o m b a s o u t o f c o u r t s t a t e m e n t s v i o l a t e d M r . Smith s due process rights; (7) M r. Smith s C onfrontation Clause rights w e r e v io l a te d v ia s t i p u l a ti o n r e g a rd i n g t h e te s t i m o n y o f K a r e n T h o m a s ; a n d ( 8 ) c u m u la tiv e e rr o r v io la te d M r . S m ith s r i g h t to d u e p r o c e s s . T o s u c c e e d o n h is § 2 2 5 4 p e ti t i o n , M r . S m i t h m u s t e s t a b li s h t h a t t h e N e w M e x ic o S u p r e m e C o u r t s d e c is i o n : ( 1 ) r e s u l t e d in a d e c i s i o n t h a t w a s c o n tr a r y t o , o r i n v o l v e d a n u n r e a s o n a b le a p p li c a ti o n o f , c le a rl y e s t a b li s h e d F e d e ra l l a w , a s d e te r m i n e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f th e U n i t e d S t a te s ; o r (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable d e te r m i n a ti o n o f th e f a c ts i n l i g h t o f th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n te d in t h e -5- S t a te c o u rt p r o c e e d i n g . 28 U .S.C. § 2254(d). [A ] determination of a factual issue made by a State c o u r t s h a ll b e p re s u m e d to b e c o r r e c t. I d . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) ; S m i t h v . M u l l i n , 3 7 9 F . 3 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 4 - 2 5 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e v ie w t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t s l e g a l a n a lys i s o f th e s t a te c o u rt d e c is i o n d e n o v o . T h e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e c o n s i d e r e d a n d re je c te d e a c h o f th e s e c la im s o n t h e m e r i t s . W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d th e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e s t h o r o u g h a n d le n g th y f in d i n g s , t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t s o r d e r , t h e b r i e f s , a n d th e e n ti r e r e c o rd o n appeal. For substantially the same reasons articulated by the magistrate j u d g e in i t s w e ll - r e a s o n e d f in d i n g s a n d r e c o m m e n d e d d is p o s i t i o n , w e d e n y M r. Sm ith s petition for habeas corpus. F i r s t , t h e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e c o rr e c tl y d e te r m i n e d th a t n o n e o f is s u e s ( 1 ) t h r o u g h ( 4 ) m e t S t r i c k la n d v . W a s h i n g t o n s d e f ic ie n t p e r f o r m a n c e o r p r e j u d i c e p r o n g s . 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e N e w M e x i c o d i s tr ic t c o u r t d e te r m i n e d th a t M r . L u c e ro s t e s t i m o n y w a s n o t i n h e r e n tl y u n r e li a b le a n d t h a t h i s c r e d ib i l i t y w a s p r o p e r l y l e f t t o t h e ju r y. I t f o u n d th e r e w a s n o r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b il i t y t h a t a m o t i o n t o e x c lu d e th e te s t i m o n y w o u l d h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s f u l. W e a g re e w i t h t h e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e th a t t h i s w a s n o t a n unreasonable application of federal law . S e c o n d , a s t o t h e l i m i ti n g i n s t r u c t i o n , t h e N e w M e x i c o d i s tr ic t c o u r t d e te r m i n e d s u c h a n in s t r u c ti o n w o u l d h a v e h a d l i t t l e v a lu e a n d w o u l d n o t -6- h a v e c h a n g e d t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e c a s e . A p l t s A p p . v o l . V , a t 1 1 9 2 . W e a g r e e th a t n e it h e r p r o n g o f S t r i c k la n d h a s b e e n m e t a n d th i s w a s n o t a n unreasonable application of clearly established federal law . Third, as to M s. Spikes m otive to lie, the state court determined that [ r ] e a s o n a b ly c o m p e t e n t a tt o r n e ys w o u l d h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t t h e r e w a s g r e a te r p o t e n ti a l f o r d a m a g e in p r e s e n ti n g t h i s e v id e n c e t h a n in u s i n g e x is t i n g e v id e n c e t o e s t a b li s h w h e n M s . S p i k e s m o t i v e to l i e a ro s e . I d . a t 1196-97. The magistrate judge determined that the decision to call a w itness is a trial tactic, and agreed that M s. Jimenes and M r. Tolbert w ould h a v e m a d e s t a te m e n t s t h a t w e r e p r e ju d i c ia l t o t h e d e f e n s e . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e m a g i s t r a te j u d g e s c o n c l u s io n s . F o u r t h , a s t o f a il u r e to o b j e c t u n d e r N M R A 1 1 - 4 0 3 ,t h e N e w M e x ic o s t a t e c o u r t f o u n d th i s d e c is i o n t o b e a ta c ti c a l o n e , a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t a reasonably competent attorney w ould have decided not to object under Rule 4 0 3 t o t e s t i m o n y o f S p i k e s p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a te m e n t s s i n c e s u c h o b j e c ti o n s w o u l d h a v e b e e n o v e rr u l e d a n d t h e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t s u c h an objection w ould have affected the outcome of the trial. A plt s A pp. vol. V , a t 1 1 9 8 . T h e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e s t a te d th e r e w a s n o th i n g u n r e a s o n a b le a b o u t t h e s t a te h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g s o u t c o m e a n d t h a t [ t] h e te s t i m o n y w a s o f m o r e th a n m a r g i n a l r e le v a n c e . I d . v o l . I I I , a t 8 0 5 ( M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e s F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d e d D i s p o s i ti o n ) . [ T h i s ] c o u r t c a n n o t s a y t h a t -7- e x c lu s i o n o f th i s t e s t i m o n y w o u l d h a v e m a d e a d if f e r e n c e i n t h e o u tc o m e o f t h e tr i a l. . . . I d . a t 8 0 6 . W e a g re e th a t t h e N e w M e x ic o c o u rt s r u l i n g w a s not an unreasonable application of federal law . Fifth, as to the coercive nature of M r. Lucero s im munity agreement, w h i c h i n c lu d e d s e v e ra l p a r a g r a p h s p r e p a re d b y t h e g o v e rn m e n t a s t o w h a t his testimony w ould be, all parties agree that this particular agreement is q u i t e u n u s u a l. M r . L u c e ro p r o m i s e d to t e s t i f y t r u t h f u ll y, a n d th e N e w M exico Supreme Court determined that the agreement did not coerce M r. L u c e ro i n t o d o i n g o t h e r w i s e . T h e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e f o u n d th a t th e r e w a s n o th i n g o n t h e r e c o rd t h a t w o u l d t e n d to s h o w L u c e ro w a s c o e rc e d in t o t e s t i f yi n g a s h e d id . I d . a t 799. Although both M r. Smith s counsel and the attorney for the State f o u n d th e a g re e m e n t t o b e u n u s u a l, th i s a c k n o w l e d g m e n t d o e s n o t e s t a b li s h t h a t t h e a g re e m e n t w a s c o e rc iv e . I d . W e a g re e w i t h t h e m a g is t r a te ju d g e th a t t h e N e w M e x ic o S u p r e m e C o u r t s d e c is i o n w a s n o t a n unreasonable application of federal law nor w as it based on an unreasonable d e te r m i n a ti o n o f th e f a c ts i n l i g h t o f th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d . Sixth, as to w hether the admission of the prior consistent statem ents f r o m M s . S a t o m b a s u p p o r ti n g M r . L u c e r o s v e r s i o n o f e v e n t s v i o l a t e d M r . S m i t h s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s , t h e N e w M e x ic o S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld t h e e v id e n c e w a s i m p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d a s s u b s t a n ti v e e v id e n c e , b u t a n y e r r o r -8- w a s h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e th e s t a te m e n t s c o u ld c o m e i n a s r e h a b il i t a ti v e e v id e n c e . T h e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e d e te r m i n e d th a t [ t] h e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t l e g a l b a s i s f o r t h e [ s t a te ] s u p r e m e c o u r t t o r u l e th a t t h e te s t i m o n y w a s p r o p e r a s r e h a b il i t a ti o n e v id e n c e , a f te r L u c e ro s c r e d ib i l i t y w a s a tt a c k e d o n c r o s s - e x a m i n a ti o n . I d . a t 8 2 7 . M o r e o v e r, [ a ] l t h o u g h t h e e v id e n c e w a s a d m i t t e d a t t r ia l a s n o n - h e a rs a y u n d e r R u l e 8 0 1 , t h e p r o s e c u ti o n d i d n o t u n d u l y e m p h a s i z e S a t o m b a s t e s t im o n y i n c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t . . . . T h e C o u r t c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e S t a te a rg u e d to t h e ju r y t h a t S a t o m b a s t e s t i m o n y c o n s t i t u t e d s u b s t a n ti v e e v id e n c e o f S m i t h s g u i l t . I d . W e a g re e w i t h t h e m a g is t r a te ju d g e s c o n c lu s i o n t h a t t h e s t a te s u p r e m e c o u r t s r e a s o n i n g w a s n o t a n u n r e a s o n a b le a p p li c a ti o n o f f e d e r a l l a w , n o r d i d i t r e n d e r t h e tr i a l f u n d a m e n ta lly u n f a ir . S e v e n t h , M r . S m i t h s C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e a r g u m e n t f a il s b e c a u s e M s. Thomas w as a defense w itness, w ho w ould not be subject to crosse x a m i n a t i o n b y M r . S m i th . W e a g r e e w i th t h e N e w M e x i c o S u p r e m e C o u r t s conclusion that M r. Smith c a n n o t e x p e c t th a t [ h e ] w o u l d b e a b l e to p r e s e n t T h o m a s t e s t i m o n y i n t h e f o rm o f a s t i p u l a ti o n w i t h o u t t h e S t a te b ri n g i n g o u t i n t h e s t i p u l a ti o n h o w [ h e ] w o u l d e x p e c t T h o m a s t o t e s t i f y o n c r o s s - e x a m i n a ti o n . W e a g re e w i t h t h e S t a te s c o n te n ti o n t h a t D e f e n d a n t[ ] a c c e p te d p a ra g r a p h s n i n e a n d te n o f th e s t i p u l a ti o n i n o r d e r t o g a in t h e f ir s t e ig h t p a r a g r a p h s o f th e s t i p u l a ti o n . 969 P.2d at 323. -9- E i g h t h a n d f i n a l l y, h a v i n g f o u n d n o e r r o r i n a n y o f t h o s e r u l i n g s , w e m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t th e r e w a s n o c u m u l a ti v e e r r o r . III. C ON CLU SIO N A c c o rd i n g l y, w e A F F I R M t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t s d e n ia l o f M r . S m i t h s § 2 2 5 4 p e t it i o n f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s . Entered for the Court, Robert H. Henry C ir c u it J u d g e -10-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.