Clayton v. Boone , 3 F. App'x 811 ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 1 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
AUBRY VASHUN CLAYTON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 00-7036
(D.C. No. 98-CV-507-S)
BOBBY BOONE, Warden; (E.D. Okla.)
Mack Alford Correctional Center;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , Chief Judge, EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Aubry Vashun Clayton, a state inmate, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to challenge a district court order denying his petition for
a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court
denied his request for COA. We also deny Clayton’s COA application and
dismiss the appeal.
Clayton was convicted in Oklahoma of second degree murder in 1991 and
sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. He appealed, and his case was assigned
to a three-judge panel of the Emergency Appellate Division of the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals, selected from a pool of judges appointed by the Chief
Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. 1
The emergency panel affirmed his
conviction and sentence. Petitioner claims his counsel did not inform him of the
emergency panel’s decision in time to permit an appeal to the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals.
Clayton then filed an application for state post-conviction relief raising five
issues, and requesting that he be allowed to file an out-of-time appeal from the
emergency panel’s decision. The state county court recommended that Clayton be
allowed to file an out-of-time appeal, but denied all of his remaining claims for
1
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has the power to assign certain
cases to an emergency panel and to review the decision of an emergency panel
upon the filing of a petition for review. Okla. Stat. tit. 20, §§ 60.1-60.5; Jackson
v. Freeman , 905 P.2d 217, 219-22 (Okla. 1995).
-2-
post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed the denial of his post-conviction claims for relief, but rejected
Clayton’s request to file an out-of-time appeal. The court noted that petitions
for review of an emergency panel’s decision are granted in only very limited
circumstances. See Rule 12.10(B), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, ch. 18, app. Because Clayton did not contend that he
met any of these criteria, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that he
was not entitled to an out-of-time appeal from the emergency panel’s decision.
Clayton then filed his § 2254 petition on October 23, 1998, asserting his
constitutional due process and equal protection rights were violated because
(1) his rights to a statutory appellate procedure were lost due to his appellate
counsel’s ineffectiveness and negligence; (2) Oklahoma did not provide him with
a lawful direct appeal as guaranteed by the state constitution; (3) Oklahoma did
not follow mandatory procedures for juvenile offenders who are charged with
serious crimes as adults; (4) the state trial court admitted his allegedly coerced
and involuntary confession into evidence at trial; (5) the trial court failed to
instruct the jury on manslaughter in the first degree; (6) he had ineffective
assistance of trial counsel; and (7) he had ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel.
-3-
In detailed and well-reasoned findings and recommendations, the magistrate
judge recommended that relief be denied and that Clayton’s habeas petition be
dismissed. The magistrate judge concluded that Clayton’s constitutional rights
had not been violated by his counsel’s failure to file a petition for review of the
emergency panel’s decision because Clayton had not demonstrated his right under
Oklahoma state law to such a discretionary appeal. He further concluded
Clayton’s claims concerning the appointment and composition of the emergency
panel, the state’s failure to provide notice of the information filed against him to
his incarcerated father, the police questioning of him outside the presence of a
parent or guardian, and the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on first degree
manslaughter were issues of state law not cognizable in a § 2254 habeas petition.
See Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). The magistrate
judge also concluded that Clayton’s involuntary confession claim was
procedurally barred, and that Clayton failed to show prejudice with respect to his
ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
After a de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations, and dismissed the appeal. The district court also
denied petitioner’s application for a COA, required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
for petitioner to appeal the denial of his § 2254 petition. Petitioner then filed
-4-
a notice of appeal, which we construe as a renewed application for COA in
accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2).
In his brief supporting his application for COA, Clayton raises the same
claims and reasserts the same arguments he made before the district court. With
one minor exception, we find nothing to add to the magistrate judge’s thorough
report and recommendation. Clayton contends the magistrate judge and the
district court failed to address his argument that the assignment of his appeal to
the Emergency Appellate Division of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals,
rather than to a regular panel of the court, two years after his conviction violates
the ex post facto clause of the federal Constitution. Because review of his appeal
by an emergency panel “neither made criminal a theretofore innocent act, nor
aggravated a crime previously committed, nor provided greater punishment, nor
changed the proof necessary to convict,” the ex post facto clause is not
implicated. Dobbert v. Florida , 432 U.S. 282, 293 (1977).
Upon review of Clayton’s COA application, supporting brief and the record
filed on appeal, we conclude for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, that Clayton has failed to make a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) to obtain a COA. He has not demonstrated “that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct” in either its
-5-
substantive constitutional analysis or its procedural rulings. Slack v. McDaniel ,
529 U.S. 473, ___, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). We therefore DENY his
application for COA and DISMISS this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Chief Judge
-6-