United States v. Roberts , 79 F. App'x 368 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    OCT 22 2003
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    No. 02-7048
    (Eastern District of Oklahoma)
    v.
    (D.C. Nos. 01-CV-273-S and
    95-CR-35-S)
    HOLLIS EARL ROBERTS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, 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.
    Following a jury trial, Hollis Roberts was convicted of two counts of
    abusive sexual contact in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2244
     and one count of
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
    aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2241
    (a)(1). 1 The district
    court sentenced Roberts to a thirty-six-month term of incarceration on each of the
    § 2244 convictions and a 135-month term of incarceration on the § 2241(a)(1)
    conviction. It ordered that all three sentences run concurrently. This court
    affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See United States v.
    Roberts, 
    185 F.3d 1125
     (10th Cir. 1999). Roberts then filed the instant 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his conviction raising the following
    three claims: (1) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (2) his sentence for
    aggravated sexual abuse violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000);
    and (3) the district court lacked jurisdiction over the underlying criminal trial
    because the crime was not committed in Indian country. The district court denied
    Roberts’ § 2255 motion and denied his request for a certificate of appealability
    (“COA”). In an order filed on February 6, 2003, this court denied Roberts a COA
    as to his Apprendi and jurisdictional claims, 2 granted Roberts a COA as to his
    1
    Roberts was acquitted of one additional count of aggravated sexual abuse,
    two additional counts of abusive sexual contact, and one count of sexual abuse in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2242
    . Furthermore, prior to trial, the district court
    dismissed an additional count of abusive sexual contact pursuant to the
    prosecution’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) motion.
    2
    In so doing, this court noted that Roberts had not made the requisite
    showing for obtaining a COA as to these two claims for the following reasons:
    (1) Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to initial habeas petitions, United
    States v. Mora, 
    293 F.3d 1213
     (10th Cir. 2002); and (2) because Roberts’
    assertions regarding the district court’s jurisdiction were raised and decided on
    direct appeal, they cannot be raised in a § 2255 motion, United States v. Prichard,
    -2-
    claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, 3 and ordered the respondent to
    file a brief addressing Roberts’ ineffective assistance claims. Upon consideration
    of the parties’ briefs and contentions on appeal, this court exercises jurisdiction
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
     and affirms.
    The facts underlying Roberts’ convictions on charges of abusive sexual
    contact and aggravated sexual abuse are set out in this court’s opinion resolving
    Roberts’ direct appeal, see Roberts, 
    185 F.3d at 1128-29
    , and will not be repeated
    here. In the instant habeas petition, Roberts asserts that his trial counsel was
    constitutionally ineffective in the following five particulars: (1) counsel failed to
    adequately cross-examine Angela Gilbert; (2) counsel failed to object to
    government vouching; (3) counsel failed to object to government bolstering; (4)
    counsel advised him not to testify; and (5) counsel failed to call him as a witness
    at the jurisdictional hearing.
    “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether
    counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process
    that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland v.
    Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 686 (1984). To demonstrate that his counsel’s
    
    875 F.2d 789
     (10th Cir. 1989).
    3
    See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(3) (providing that a COA must delineate the
    specific issues as to which the movant has made a substantial showing of the
    denial of a constitutional right).
    -3-
    performance was so defective as to require reversal of his convictions, Roberts
    must make the following two showings: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient
    (i.e., “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the
    ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment”); and (2) counsel’s
    deficient performance prejudiced his defense (i.e., “counsel’s errors were so
    serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable”).
    
    Id. at 687
    .
    To demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient, Roberts “must
    show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
    reasonableness.” 
    Id. at 688
    . Our review of counsel’s performance is “highly
    deferential” and this court “indulge[s] a strong presumption that counsel’s
    conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” 
    Id. at 689
    . Because it is “all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel’s
    assistance after conviction,” this court must make every effort “to eliminate the
    distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s
    challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the
    time.” 
    Id.
     Even if Roberts satisfies Strickland’s performance prong, he is not
    entitled to relief unless he can also demonstrate that counsel’s unreasonable
    performance “actually had an adverse effect on the defense.” 
    Id. at 693
    . Roberts
    must “show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
    -4-
    unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A
    reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
    outcome.” 
    Id. at 694
    . Accordingly, this court looks to whether “despite the
    strong presumption of reliability, the result of the particular proceeding is
    unreliable because of a breakdown in the adversarial process that our system
    counts on to produce just results.” 
    Id. at 696
    . It is unnecessary to examine both
    Strickland’s performance and prejudice prongs if a defendant makes an
    insufficient showing on one of the prongs. 
    Id. at 697
    .
    With this background in mind, this court can easily resolve two of Roberts’
    claims by reference to this court’s opinion on direct appeal. Roberts asserts that
    trial counsel unreasonably failed to object to various statements made by the
    prosecution during opening and closing arguments. On direct appeal, this court
    specifically rejected Robert’s assertion that he was prejudiced by the statements:
    “Given the context of the statements, curative instructions, and abundance of
    testimonial evidence on which the jury could have based its verdict, we do not
    believe that prosecutor’s comments merit reversal of Mr. Roberts’ conviction; at
    most, the comments were harmless error.” Roberts, 
    185 F.3d at 1144
    .
    Accordingly, notwithstanding the arguments in Roberts’ reply brief before this
    court relating to trial counsel’s performance, it is clear that Roberts cannot
    -5-
    demonstrate he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s
    remarks.
    Similarly, Roberts’ assertion that his trial counsel was ineffective for
    failing to call him as an expert witness at the jurisdictional hearing fails in light
    of this court’s conclusion on direct appeal that the Choctaw Nation Tribal
    Complex “is Indian Country for purposes of the Major Crimes Act, and no
    procedural or administrative defect nullifies this status.” 
    Id. at 1137
    . Other than
    the conclusory and empty assertion that he “had reason to know that there were
    fatal errors in the method by which the Choctaw Nation’s headquarters in Durant
    had been acquired and placed in trust,” an assertion that is clearly belied by the
    extensive analysis of the issue in this court’s opinion on direct appeal, Roberts
    does not offer anything demonstrating that his counsel’s “failure” to call him at
    the jurisdictional hearing was constitutionally deficient representation.
    Roberts’ three remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel all
    revolve around counsel’s actions with regard to Angela Gilbert. Roberts was
    convicted of one count of aggravated sexual abuse of Gilbert and one count of
    abusive sexual contact of Gilbert. Roberts asserts that counsel rendered
    ineffective assistance by failing to cross-examine Gilbert about the events giving
    rise to the charges. Upon review of the record and Roberts’ contentions on
    appeal, this court concludes that Roberts has failed to demonstrate either that his
    -6-
    counsel’s performance was constitutionally ineffective or that he suffered
    prejudice as a result of counsel’s decision not to cross-examine Gilbert regarding
    the incidents giving rise to the charges. The defense’s theory of the case was that
    the prosecution had been deceived by a number of disaffected employees of the
    Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, including Gilbert, who were being used as pawns
    by Roberts’ political rivals within the Nation. Counsel’s extensive cross-
    examination of Gilbert was entirely consistent with this theory of the defense.
    There is an obvious strategic purpose in focusing the cross-examination on these
    particular matters: an exclusive focus on Gilbert’s connections with Roberts’
    political rivals serves to blunt Gilbert’s rather graphic allegations of sexual abuse.
    Roberts’ bare assertion that his counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-
    examine Gilbert about the incidents giving rise to the charges is insufficient to
    overcome the “strong presumption” that counsel provided constitutionally
    effective assistance. Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 689
    ; see also United States v.
    Snyder, 
    787 F.2d 1429
    , 1432 (10th Cir. 1986) (“Counsel’s selection of questions
    is a matter of ‘strategic choice,’ as to which he has broad latitude.”).
    Nor has Roberts come forward with sufficient allegations regarding
    prejudice to overcome the “strong presumption of reliability” that attaches to his
    criminal proceedings. Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 696
    . There is no indication in
    either Roberts’ § 2255 motion or his briefs on appeal that cross-examining Gilbert
    -7-
    about the incidents giving rise to the charges would have adduced any testimony
    favorable to Roberts. Absent some indication that Gilbert would have done
    anything other than simply repeat her allegations on cross-examination, thereby
    further highlighting for the jury the graphic details of the alleged sexual abuse,
    we fail to see how Roberts was prejudiced by his counsel’s decision to cross-
    examine Gilbert in a manner consistent with the defense’s theory of the case.
    These same considerations lead this court to conclude Roberts has failed to
    demonstrate that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him not to testify
    about the incidents giving rise to Gilbert’s allegations and for not objecting to
    Gilbert writing out, instead of verbalizing, three graphic phrases Roberts
    allegedly said to Gilbert. Both of those decisions are fully consistent with
    counsel’s strategy to focus on a theory of the case emphasizing that the
    prosecution had been deceived by Gilbert, who was being used as a pawn by
    Roberts’ political rivals within the Choctaw Nation. Each of these challenged
    decisions is clearly tied to counsel’s strategy to try to keep the jury from focusing
    on the graphic allegations of sexual abuse advanced by Gilbert and focus instead
    on her asserted ulterior motives. For this reason, Roberts’ ipse dixit assertion that
    the only reasonable strategy was to challenge both the political motivations and
    the factual accuracy of the Gilbert’s allegations is at odds with the record in this
    case.
    -8-
    At their base, Roberts’ arguments on appeal seem to assert that because he
    was convicted of these crimes, his counsel must have been ineffective. Strickland
    mandates, however, that this court be “highly deferential” in its review of
    counsel’s performance and “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct
    falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” 
    466 U.S. at 689
    . Because it is “all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel’s
    assistance after conviction,” this court must make every effort “to eliminate the
    distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s
    challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the
    time.” 
    Id.
     Although, in hindsight, counsel’s strategy was not completely
    successful, the strategy was certainly reasonable when viewed from counsel’s
    perspective at the time of trial. Because the record before this court and Roberts’
    § 2255 motion conclusively demonstrate that he is not entitled to relief, Roberts is
    not entitled to an evidentiary hearing before the district court. United States v.
    Lopez, 
    100 F.3d 113
    , 119 (10th Cir. 1996).
    -9-
    Upon review of the parties’ briefs and submissions, the order of the district
    court denying Roberts’ § 2255 motion is AFFIRMED for those reasons set out
    above.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Michael R. Murphy
    Circuit Judge
    -10-