Moser v. Wyoming Attorney General ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 21-8094 Document: 010110734010 Date Filed: 09/06/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 6, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
JONATHON KENT MOSER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 21-8094
(D.C. No. 2:19-CV-00187-ABJ)
WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, (D. Wyo.)
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Jonathon Kent Moser, a Wyoming state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his
application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a
COA to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention
complained of arises out of process issued by a State court”). We deny Mr. Moser’s
request for a COA and dismiss this matter.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 21-8094 Document: 010110734010 Date Filed: 09/06/2022 Page: 2
I. BACKGROUND
A. State court proceedings
A jury convicted Mr. Moser in Carbon County, Wyoming, on one count of sexual
assault of a minor in the first degree and three counts of sexual assault of a minor in the
second degree. The counts arose from Mr. Moser’s conduct with two female students at
the Rawlins Middle School, where he worked. One of the victims, A.C., testified that
Mr. Moser rubbed her leg and touched her hands on one occasion and had intercourse
with her on another occasion. The other victim, M.G., testified that Mr. Moser touched
her breasts and vagina over her clothing. Under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b),1 the
trial court allowed testimony by four female witnesses (the Middle School witnesses),
who described being touched by Mr. Moser on their buttocks and upper thighs while
attending Rawlins Middle School, and by three other female witnesses (the Converse
County witnesses), who described being sexually assaulted by him when they were
students at a high school in Converse County, where he worked after Rawlins Middle
School.
1
Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides:
Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts
is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he
acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other
purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon
request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide
reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses
pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such
evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
2
Appellate Case: 21-8094 Document: 010110734010 Date Filed: 09/06/2022 Page: 3
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. See Moser v. State, 409 P.3d 1236,
1243–51 (Wyo. 2018). Mr. Moser filed a petition for postconviction relief raising three
claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The postconviction court dismissed
the petition, concluding that the claims were procedurally barred. The Wyoming
Supreme Court summarily denied Mr. Moser’s Petition for Writ of Review.
B. Federal district-court proceedings
In his § 2254 application Mr. Moser advanced three grounds for relief. The first
and third grounds asserted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to
challenge the admission of the Converse County witnesses’ testimony and a limitation on
the cross-examination of A.C. In ground two Mr. Moser argued that the cumulative
nature of the Rule 404(b) witnesses’ testimony violated his Fourteenth Amendment
due-process rights.
The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition. The district court granted the
State’s motion, dismissed the petition with prejudice, and denied a COA. The court ruled
that grounds one and three were procedurally barred in federal court based on the
postconviction court’s finding that the corresponding claims were procedurally defaulted
in state court, and that Mr. Moser had not shown his appellate counsel had been
constitutionally ineffective regarding those claims so he could not demonstrate cause and
prejudice to overcome the bar. As for ground two’s due-process claim, the court held
that it amounted to a state-law Rule 404(b) claim not cognizable in habeas.
3
Appellate Case: 21-8094 Document: 010110734010 Date Filed: 09/06/2022 Page: 4
II. COA STANDARD
We will issue a COA “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 the
applicant to 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). For claims the district court denied on a procedural ground
without reaching the merits, the applicant must also show that the district court’s
procedural ruling is debatable. Id.III. ANALYSIS
A. Grounds one and three
Mr. Moser does not take issue with the district court’s application of procedural
bar to grounds one and three. Instead, he argues the merits of those grounds. But we do
not address the merits of a claim that was defaulted in state court on an independent and
adequate state procedural ground unless the petitioner can show cause and prejudice for
the default or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result from a failure to
consider the claim. See Thacker v. Workman, 678 F.3d 820, 835 (10th Cir. 2012). We
construe his arguments concerning appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness as a challenge to
the district court’s determination that he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice to
overcome the procedural bar because “an attorney’s error can constitute cause to excuse a
procedural default if it satisfies both prongs of the test for [ineffective assistance of
counsel],” Davis v. Sharp, 943 F.3d 1290, 1298 (10th Cir. 2019). The two prongs are
(1) deficient performance, which occurs when “counsel’s representation fell below an
4
Appellate Case: 21-8094 Document: 010110734010 Date Filed: 09/06/2022 Page: 5
objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) resulting prejudice, which exists if “there
is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688,
694 (1984).
1. Ground one
On ground one the district court determined that Mr. Moser had not shown that
appellate counsel would have been able to persuade the Wyoming Supreme Court that the
trial court abused its discretion in allowing the Rule 404(b) testimony of the three
Converse County witnesses. Mr. Moser has not shown that reasonable jurists would
debate the district court’s resolution of this issue. He points to the Wyoming Supreme
Court’s comment that “the prejudicial effect of [the four Middle School witnesses’]
testimony challenged on appeal was likely negligible” but, “[i]n terms of prejudice,” the
conduct testified to by the three Converse County witnesses “was much more
reprehensible than the uncharged misconduct testimony of [the four Middle School
witnesses].” Moser, 409 P.3d at 1248 n.5. But the relative reprehensibility of the two
sets of testimony is not dispositive. In concluding that admission of the Middle School
witnesses’ testimony was not unfairly prejudicial, the Wyoming Supreme Court focused
on the trial court’s observation that the conduct to which those “witnesses testified was
not more serious or reprehensible than the charged conduct.” Id. at 1248 (emphasis
added). Similarly, the conduct described in the testimony by the Converse County
witnesses was not more serious or reprehensible than the conduct Mr. Moser was charged
with, which included intercourse with A.C. and touching M.G.’s breast. In light of the
5
Appellate Case: 21-8094 Document: 010110734010 Date Filed: 09/06/2022 Page: 6
thorough, well-reasoned opinion of the Wyoming Supreme Court explaining why the
state trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting the testimony by the Middle
School witnesses, we do not think that reasonable jurists could debate whether the
Wyoming Supreme Court would have determined that the trial court abused its discretion
by admitting the Converse County witnesses’ testimony. We therefore deny a COA on
ground one.2
2. Ground three
Ground three concerned defense counsel’s request to cross-examine A.C. about
her testimony that Mr. Moser had intercourse with her and that she waited a year before
reporting it because she was afraid. Defense counsel sought to impeach her by eliciting
testimony about her prompt reporting of a sexual assault in an unrelated case to show she
was not afraid of law enforcement. The trial court’s sole restriction on cross-examination
was that defense counsel could not elicit that A.C. had been the victim of a prior sexual
assault.
In denying relief the federal district court explained that the only “fact omitted
from the cross-examination was A.C.’s status as a prior sexual assault victim” and
defense counsel was able to elicit “substantially the same testimony on cross-examination
2
Mr. Moser also argues that because he was acquitted of the conduct about which
the Converse County witnesses testified, their testimony could not provide “proof of
motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake
or accident,” Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b). But Mr. Moser acknowledges that he was acquitted
on those charges more than a year after the Carbon County trial concluded. Hence, the
acquittal has no bearing on the admissibility of the testimony at the time of the Carbon
County trial.
6
Appellate Case: 21-8094 Document: 010110734010 Date Filed: 09/06/2022 Page: 7
that Mr. Moser claims was necessary to impeach the witness,” namely, that A.C. “ had
talked to law enforcement in the past, she was not afraid of law enforcement, she knew
law enforcement would protect her, and she knew Mr. Moser would likely be arrested if
she reported a sexual assault.” R., Vol. I at 57. Because the claim lacked merit, the court
concluded that Mr. Moser could not show ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and
therefore could not establish cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural bar.
Mr. Moser has not shown that reasonable jurists could debate the correctness of
the district court’s conclusion that the prohibition on referring to A.C.’s “status as a
victim” in the other case, R., Vol. II at 466:4, did not prevent Mr. Moser from presenting
a complete defense, particularly in light of A.C.’s repeated insistence that she delayed
reporting because she was afraid of Mr. Moser, not law enforcement, and her testimony
that her continued delay in reporting after Mr. Moser left the middle school was because
she was “afraid of what everyone would think of me if I did [report],” id. at 548:25 to
549:1. We deny a COA on ground three.
B. Ground two
In denying relief on the due-process claim, the district court rejected Mr. Moser’s
argument that the trial court placed no restrictions on the jury’s consideration of the
Rule 404(b) witnesses’ testimony, pointing out that the trial court gave a detailed limiting
instruction before each such witness. The instruction stated that the jury could not
consider the evidence to suggest Mr. Moser had a propensity or was predisposed to
commit the crimes he was charged with or as evidence of his guilt for those charged
crimes. The district court concluded that because the record did not support Mr. Moser’s
7
Appellate Case: 21-8094 Document: 010110734010 Date Filed: 09/06/2022 Page: 8
constitutional claim, the claim was merely a complaint that the trial court wrongly
decided an issue of state evidence law that was not cognizable in habeas.
In his COA application Mr. Moser argues that he was prejudiced by the admission
of testimony by one of the Converse County witnesses because it exceeded the scope of
the Rule 404(b) notice. But this argument is not preserved because he did not raise it in
his § 2254 application. See Heard v. Addison, 728 F.3d 1170, 1175 (10th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we limit our COA consideration to his argument that the admission of the
Rule 404(b) witnesses’ testimony violated due process. He can establish a violation of
due process only if the alleged error caused his trial to be fundamentally unfair. See
Duckett v. Mullin, 306 F.3d 982, 999 (10th Cir. 2002) (“We may not provide habeas
corpus relief on the basis of state court evidentiary rulings unless they rendered the trial
so fundamentally unfair that a denial of constitutional rights results.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)). This, he has failed to do. He has not shown that reasonable jurists
could debate the district court’s resolution of his due-process issue. We therefore deny a
COA on ground two.
IV. CONCLUSION
We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this matter.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
8