Smith vs. Sirmons, No. 06-6067 (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 17, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court A N TO N IO LA V ELLE SM ITH , P e t i ti o n e r - A p p e l l a n t , v. No. 06-6067 M A RTY SIRM O N S, W arden, ( D .C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 1 0 7 2 - H ) (W . D . O klahoma) R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e ll e e . OR DER DENYING CERTIFICATE O F APPEALABILITY* B e f o r e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , a n d O B R I E N , C i r c u it J u d g e s . P e t i t i o n e r A n t o n io L a v e ll e S m i t h , a p r i s o n e r i n t h e c u s t o d y o f th e S t a t e o f O k l a h o m a , p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , s e e k s a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l it y ( C O A ) t o a p p e a l th e d is t r i c t c o u r t s d e n ia l o f h is 2 8 U .S . C . § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e ti t i o n . S e e 2 8 U .S . C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t n o a p p e a l m a y b e t a k e n f r o m a f in a l o r d e r d i s p o s i n g o f a § 2 2 5 4 p e t i t i o n u n l e s s t h e p e ti t i o n e r obtains a C O A ). Smith w as convicted of first degree murder by a jury and sentenced to l i f e im p r i s o n m e n t w it h o u t p a r o l e . H e a p p e a le d h is c o n v ic ti o n t o t h e * T h i s o r d e r i s n o t b in 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 tr i n e s o f la w of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. O k l a h o m a C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a ls ( O C C A ) , w h i c h a f f ir m e d th e c o n v ic ti o n a n d s e n te n c e o n M a y 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 . S m i t h d i d n o t f il e a p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v ic ti o n r e li e f in s t a te c o u rt . O n A u g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , S m i t h f il e d a p e ti t i o n f o r f e d e r a l h a b e a s r e li e f p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U .S . C . § 2 2 5 4 i n t h e U n i t e d S t a te s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f O k l a h o m a . O n F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt g ra n te d S m ith s m o tio n to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. S m i t h f il e d a n a m e n d e d p e t i t i o n o n F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , r a is i n g n i n e g r o u n d s for relief. These nine grounds m irror the nine grounds raised by Smith in h i s d i r e c t a p p e a l to th e O C C A . G rounds one through four allege that the trial court erroneously a d m i t te d c e r t a i n t e s t i m o n y a n d e v i d e n c e t h a t v i o l a t e d S m i t h s r i g h t t o a f a i r trial and his rights under the Confrontation Clause. In ground five, Smith a r g u e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n yi n g h i s m o t i o n f o r s e v e r a n c e . G r o u n d s i x a s s e r t s t h a t S m i t h s C o n f r o n t a ti o n C l a u s e r i g h t s w e r e v io l a te d w h e n th e tr i a l c o u r t l i m i t e d h is a b il i t y to c r o s s - e x a m i n e a s t a te w i t n e s s . I n g r o u n d s e v e n , S m i t h a ll e g e s t h e tr i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y f a il e d to s u a s p o n t e in s t r u c t t h e j u r y o n a c c o m p l ic e te s t i m o n y. I n g r o u n d e ig h t , S m i t h c o n te n d s h e w a s d e n ie d a f a ir t r i a l b y t h e a d m i s s i o n o f ir r e le v a n t a n d h ig h l y p r e ju d i c ia l p h o t o g r a p h s o f th e v ic ti m . F i n a ll y, g r o u n d n i n e a ll e g e s a n a c c u m u l a ti o n o f e r r o r s e n titli n g S m ith to a n e w tr ia l. T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t d e n ie d S m i t h s h a b e a s p e ti t i o n o n J a n u a ry 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 -2- a f te r a d o p ti n g t h e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e s r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a ti o n a n d f in d i n g a ll n i n e o f h is g r o u n d s t o l a c k m e r i t . O n F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n ie d a C O A b e c a u s e S m i t h h a d n o t m a d e a s u b s t a n ti a l show ing of the denial of a constitutional right and denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. T h i s c o u r t c a n is s u e a C O A o n l y if th e a p p li c a n t h a s m a d e a s u b s t a n t i a l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . A p e ti t i o n e r s a ti s f ie s t h i s s t a n d a rd b y d e m o n s t r a ti n g t h a t jurists of reason could disagree w ith the district court s resolution of his c o n s t it u t io n a l c l a i m s o r th a t ju r is t s c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d a r e a d e q u a t e to d e s e r v e e n c o u r a g e m e n t t o p r o c e e d f u r t h e r . M i l l e r - E l v . C o c k r e ll , 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . T h is d e te r m i n a ti o n re q u ir e s a n o v e r v i e w o f th e c la im s i n t h e h a b e a s p e ti t i o n a n d a g e n e r a l a s s e s s m e n t o f their merits. Id. at 336. Smith is not required to prove the merits of his c a s e , b u t h e m u s t n o n e th e le s s d e m o n s t r a te so m e th i n g m o r e th a n th e a b s e n c e o f f r i v o l i t y o r t h e m e r e e x is t e n c e o f g o o d f a it h o n h is p a r t . I d . a t 3 3 8 ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). U n d e r § 2 2 5 4 , t h i s c o u r t m a y g r a n t a C O A o n a c la im t h a t w a s a d ju d i c a te d o n th e m e r i t s i n s t a te c o u rt o n l y i f th e s t a te c o u rt s d e c is i o n w as contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly 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 t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f th e U n i t e d -3- S t a te s o r w a s b a s e d o n a n u n re a s o n a b le 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 t h e e v i d e n c e p re s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) . A f te r c a re f u l r e v ie w o f S m i t h s a p p li c a ti o n , t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e O C C A o n d i r e c t a p p e a l , t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t s o r d e r d e n yi n g h a b e a s r e li e f , a n d t h e m a t e r i a l p o r ti o n s o f t h e r e c o r d , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t S m i th s c l a i m s a r e w ithout merit. Smith s first three grounds involve the admission of evidence at trial, w h i c h h e a r g u e s d e n ie d h im a f a i r t r i a l a n d v io l a te d h is r i g h t s u n d e r t h e C o n f r o n t a ti o n C l a u s e . S p e c i f i c a l ly, h e c o n t e s t s a d m i s s io n o f a n o v e r h e a r d t e l e p h o n e c o n v e rs a tio n h e h a d w ith h is b r o th e r d is c u s s in g th e v ic tim , a t h r e a te n in g p h o n e c a l l h i s b r o t h e r m a d e to a p o te n ti a l t r i a l w i t n e s s , a n d e v i d e n c e th a t th e v ic tim h a d f ile d a p r o te c tiv e o r d e r a g a in s t h is b r o th e r . [ S ] t a te c o u rt r u l i n g s o n t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v id e n c e m a y n o t b e q u e s ti o n e d i n f e d e r a l h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g s u n l e s s th e y r e n d e r th e t ri a l s o f u n d a m e n t a ll y u n f a ir a s t o c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l o f f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . T u c k e r v . M a k o w s k i , 8 8 3 F . 2 d 8 7 7 , 8 8 1 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ( c it a ti o n o m i t t e d ) . T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y c o n c lu d e d th a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f th e evidence in question did not render Smith s trial fundamentally unfair b e c a u s e th e o v e rh e a rd t e le p h o n e c o n v e r s a ti o n d i d n o t p r o v e c e n t r a l t o t h e p r o s e c u ti o n s c a s e a n d th e o th e r e v id e n c e i m p l i c a te d S m i t h s b r o t h e r , r a th e r than Smith. -4- S m i t h a ll e g e s i n h i s f o u r t h g r o u n d t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f th e a b o v e e v id e n c e a n d o th e r e v id e n c e f r o m t r i a l, s p e c if ic a ll y s t a te m e n t s h i s b r o t h e r m a d e to a d e te c tiv e , v i o l a te d h is C o n f r o n t a ti o n C l a u s e r i g h t s . T h e Confrontation Clause bars the introduction of testimonial hearsay against a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t, u n l e s s t h e d e c l a r a n t i s u n a v a il a b le a n d th e a c c u s e d h a s h a d a p ri o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e th e d e c l a r a n t. C r a w f o r d v . W ashington, 541 U .S. 36, 53-54 (2004). None of the statem ents Smith c o m p l a in s o f q u a li f y a s t e s t i m o n i a l h e a rs a y o f f e r e d a g a i n s t h i m u n d e r Craw ford. The district court properly concluded that this evidence fails to i m p l i c a te S m i t h s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e C o n f r o n t a ti o n C l a u s e b e c a u s e it e it h e r : 1 ) w a s n o t o f f e r e d a g a i n s t h i m ; 2 ) d i d n o t i m p l i c a te h im , o r ; 3 ) w a s n o t h e a r s a y. E v e n if a n y o f th i s 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 t e s t i m o n i a l h e a r s a y, S m i t h i s n o t e n t it l e d t o h a b e a s r e l i e f b a s e d o n t r ia l e r r o r u n l e s s [ h e ] c a n e s t a b li s h t h a t i t r e s u l t e d in a c tu a l p r e ju d i c e . B r e c h t v . A brahamson, 507 U .S. 619, 637 (1993). Smith has failed to demonstrate a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e f r o m t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h i s e v i d e n c e . F i n a l l y, S m i t h a s s e r t e d in h i s d i r e c t a p p e a l a n d in a r g u m e n ts i n s u p p o r t o f th i s a p p e a l t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l s f a il u r e to o b j e c t t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f th i s e v id e n c e w a s ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court addressed this a r g u m e n t , th o u g h n o t i n c l u d e d i n S m i t h s h a b e a s p e t i ti o n , a n d f o u n d t h a t i t -5- l a c k s m e r i t b e c a u s e f a i l u r e to o b j e c t t o a d m i s s i b l e e v id e n c e i s n o t i n e f f e c t i v e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. W e a g r e e w ith th is d e te r m in a tio n . Smith s fifth ground alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to s e v e r h i s t r i a l f r o m h i s b r o t h e r s t r i a l b e c a u s e h e w a s p r e ju d i c e d b y t h e a d m i s s i o n o f e v id e n c e th a t p e rt a in e d s o le ly to th e c a s e a g a in s t h is b r o th e r . W h e th e r t h e tr i a l c o u r t e r r e d in d e n yi n g s e v e ra n c e i s g e n e ra ll y a q u e s t i o n o f s t a te la w t h a t i s n o t c o g n iz a b le o n f e d e r a l h a b e a s a p p e a l , f o r a c ri m i n a l d e f e n d a n t h a s n o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o s e v e ra n c e u n l e s s t h e r e is a s t r o n g s h o w i n g o f p r e ju d i c e c a u s e d b y t h e jo i n t t r i a l. C u m m i n g s v . E v a n s , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 9 ( 1 0 t h C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( c i ta t io n s o m i tt e d ) . T h e d i s tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r l y f o u n d th a t t h is c la im l a c k s m e r i t . T h e O C C A n o t e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l t h a t S m i t h a n d h is b r o t h e r d i d n o t p r e s e n t a n ta g o n is t i c d e f e n s e s a n d t h e m i n i m a l e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a g a i n s t h i s b r o t h e r d u r i n g t h e tr i a l d i d n o t i m p l i c a t e S m i t h . F u r t h e r , w h e n t h e e ye w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y a g a i n s t S m i t h i s a ls o c o n s i d e r e d , b o t h t h e O C C A a n d th e d is t r i c t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d S m i t h h a s failed to make a strong show ing of prejudice caused by the joint trial. W e agree. I n h i s s i x t h g r o u n d , S m i t h a ll e g e 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 f o r the trial court s limitation of defense counsel s cross-examination of a state w i t n e s s r e la tin g to w h e th e r t h e v ic tim h a d e v e r p a id th e w itn e s s w ith d r u g s . T h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e g u a r a n t e e s a n o p p o r tu n i t y f o r e f f e c t iv e c r o s s -6- e x a m i n a t i o n , n o t c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t i s e f f e c t i v e i n w h a t e v e r w a y, a n d t o w h a te v e r e x te n t, t h e d e f e n s e m i g h t w i s h . D e la w a r e v . V a n A r s d a ll , 4 7 5 U . S . 6 7 3 , 6 7 9 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( c it a ti o n s o m i t t e d ) . B e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e t h e c r i m e a t i s s u e r e la te d to a d r u g t r a n s a c tio n , t h e ju r y h a d h e a r d e n o u g h a b o u t t h e w i t n e s s d r u g u s e to i m p e a c h h i s t e s t i m o n y, a n d th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d b y t h i s w i t n e s s w a s n o t t h e o n ly e v id e n c e o f S m i t h s g u il t , w e a g re e w i t h t h e d i s tr ic t c o u r t t h a t t h e O C C A w a s c o r r e c t in a f f i r m i n g t h e t r ia l c o u r t s l i m i t a t i o n o f th is n o n -r e le v a n t te s tim o n y. S m i t h s s e v e n t h g r o u n d a l l e g e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l in g t o s u a s p o n t e in s t ru c t th e j u r y t h a t , u n d e r O k l a h o m a l a w , a n a c c o m p l ic e s t e s t i m o n y r e q u ir e s c o r r o b o r a ti o n . T h e O C C A d e te r m in e d , a n d th e d is t r i c t c o u r t c o n c u rr e d , t h a t t h e w i t n e s s a t i s s u e w a s n o t a n a c c o m p l i c e u n d e r O klahoma law . Even if the w itness w as considered an accomplice, Smith m u s t s h o w t h a t in t h e c o n te x t o f th e e n ti r e tr i a l, t h e f a i l u r e to i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t o c a re f u ll y c o n s i d e r [ th e w i t n e s s ] c r e d ib i l i t y a s a n a c c o m p l i c e h a d t h e e f f e c t o f r e n d e ri n g t h e tr i a l s o f u n d a m e n t a ll y u n f a ir a s t o c a u s e d e n ia l o f a f a i r t r i a l. F o s t e r v . W a r d , 1 8 2 F . 3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 9 3 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y c o n c lu d e d th a t S m i t h f a il e d to m e e t t h i s h e a v y burden. I n h i s e ig h t h g r o u n d , S m i t h a s s e r t s h e w a s d e n ie d d u e p ro c e s s b y t h e a d m i s s i o n o f h ig h ly p re ju d ic ia l a n d ir r e le v a n t p h o to g r a p h s o f th e v ic tim . -7- O n h a b e a s r e v ie w , t h i s c o u r t c o n s i d e r s o n l y w h e th e r t h e a d m i s s i o n o f th e p h o t o g r a p h s r e n d e re d th e p r o c e e d i n g s f u n d a m e n t a ll y u n f a ir . S m a ll w o o d v . G i b s o n , 1 9 1 F .3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 7 5 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) . C o u r ts s h o u l d u s e c o n s id e r a b l e s e lf - r e s tr a in t w h e n u n d e r ta k i n g a f u n d a m e n t a l f a i r n e s s a n a lys i s . I d . B e c a u s e th e p h o to g r a p h s d e m o n s t r a te d th e lo c a ti o n , c o n d it i o n , a n d p o s i t i o n o f th e v ic ti m s b o d y a t t h e s c e n e o f th e s h o o t i n g a n d c o r r o b o r a te d te s t i m o n y r e g a rd i n g t h e c ir c u m s t a n c e s o f th e m u r d e r , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w a s c o r r e c t i n f in d i n g t h a t t h e ir a d m i s s i o n w a s p r o b a ti v e a n d d i d n o t re n d e r S m i th s tr ia l f u n d a m e n t a ll y u n f a i r. F i n a ll y, S m i t h s n i n t h g r o u n d a s s e r t s t h a t t h e c u m u l a ti v e e f f e c t o f th e a ll e g e d e r r o r s r e n d e re d h is t r i a l f u n d a m e n t a ll y u n f a ir . C u m u l a ti v e e rr o r a n a lys i s d o e s n o t a p p ly t o t h e c u m u l a ti v e e f f e c t o f n o n - e r r o r s , a n d r e q u i r e s a t l e a s t t w o o r m o r e a c t u a l e r r o r s f o r r e l i e f . M o o r e v . R e yn o l d s , 1 5 3 F . 3 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 1 1 3 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . B e c a u s e S m i t h h a s f a il e d to s h o w t h a t t w o o r m o re a c tu a l e rr o rs o c c u r r e d , th is c la im is w ith o u t m e r i t. T o p r o c e e d i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s o n a p p e a l , S m i t h m u s t s h o w a f i n a n c ia l i n a b il i t y t o p a y t h e r e q u ir e d f e e s a n d th e e x is t e n c e o f a r e a s o n e d , n o n f r i v o l o u s a r g u m e n t o n t h e la w a n d f a c ts i n s u p p o r t o f th e is s u e s r a is e d o n a p p e a l . M c I n t o s h v . U n i t e d S t a te s P a r o l e C o m m n , 1 1 5 F . 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 2 ( 1 0 t h C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( c i t a t io n s o m it t e d ) . U p o n r e v i e w o f S m it h s a f f i d a v i t , w e c o n c lu d e th a t h e is n o t e n ti t l e d to p r o c e e d i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s b e c a u s e h e h a s -8- not presented a nonfrivolous argument on appeal. S m i t h h a s f a il e d to m a k e a s u b s t a n ti a l s h o w i n g o f th e d e n ia l o f a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t a s t o a n y o f h i s n i n e g r o u n d s f o r r e l ie f . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e D E N Y h i s re q u e s t f o r a C O A a n d D I S M I S S t h e m a t te r . W e D E N Y S m i th s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and remind him that the fee for this a p p e a l r e m a in s d u e . E n t e r e d f o r th e C o u r t M a r y B e c k B r is c o e C ir c u it J u d g e -9-

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.