McNeil v. Franklin

Tenth Circuit

McNeil v. Franklin

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 2006

Docket06-6059

StatusPublished

This text of McNeil v. Franklin (McNeil v. Franklin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McNeil v. Franklin, (10th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 10, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court

D E L B E R T M c N E IL , J R .,

P e t i ti o n e r - A p p e l l a n t ,

v. No. 06-6059 (W . D . O klahoma) ERIC FR A N K LIN , W arden, (D.C. No. CIV-05-0843-HE)

R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e ll e e .

ORDER

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 .

D e l b e r t M c N e i l , J r ., a s ta t e p r is o n e r 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 ic a te o f A p p e a la b il i t y ( “ C O A ” ) to a p p e a l t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n ia l o f

h i s p e ti t i o n f o r a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S . C . § 2 2 5 4 . T h e d is t r i c t

c o u r t d e n i e d M r . M c N e i l ’ s p e t i ti o n a s a r e s u l t o f ( 1 ) h i s p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l t

o f c l a i m s a l l e g i n g a n i l le g a l a r r e s t a n d s e i z u r e , a n d i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o

s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c ti o n , a n d ( 2 ) h i s f a i lu r e t o s h o w c a u s e a n d p r e j u d i c e o r a

f u n d a m e n t a l m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t ic e t o o v e r c o m e p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l t. M r .

M c N e il a ls o s e e k s t o p r o c e e d i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s ( “ I F P ” ) o n a p p e a l . W e d e n y

a C O A , d e n y h i s re q u e s t t o p r o c e e d I F P , a n d d i s m i s s th e m a t te r . I. BACKGROUND

I n J u n e 2 0 0 3 , M r . M c N e il w a s c h a rg e d w i t h m a n u f a c tu r i n g

m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e , i n v i o l a ti o n o f O k l a . S t a t . t i t . 6 3 , § 2 - 4 0 1 ( G ) . B e c a u s e

M r . M c N e il w a s p r e v io u s l y c o n v ic te d o f tw o o r m o r e f e l o n i e s , h e w a s

charged under O klahoma’s sentence enhancement statute. A court-

a p p o i n t e d a t to r n e y c o n d u c t e d p r e - t ri a l l it ig a t io n , b u t th e c o u r t g r a n t e d M r .

M c N e il t h e r i g h t t o r e p r e s e n t h i m s e lf a t h i s o n e - d a y j u r y t r i a l. A j u r y f o u n d

M r . M c N e i l g u i l ty a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m t o l i f e i n p r i s o n . W i t h n e w c o u r t -

a p p o in t e d c o u n s e l, M r . M c N e il a p p e a l e d h is c o n v ic ti o n a n d s e n te n c e a s

e x c e s s i v e , b u t t h e 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 ” )

a f f i r m e d . O n d i r e c t a p p e a l , M r . M c N e il d i d n o t r a is e a n y o f th e c la im s t h a t

h e n o w p r e s e n ts . I n s t a te p o s t - c o n v ic ti o n p r o c e e d i n g s , M r . M c N e il d i d n o t

a l l e g e i n e f f e c t iv e a s s i s ta n c e o f a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l f o r f a i l u r e to r a is e th e s e

claim s on direct appeal.1

M r . M c N e i l s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a § 2 2 5 4 p e t i ti o n f o r h a b e a s r e l i e f i n

federal district court. He asserted that (1) he w as arrested w ithout probable

cause; (2) an officer seized him in violation of the Fourteenth A mendment;

a n d ( 3 ) t h e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n v ic ti o n . I n a

thorough and w ell-reasoned report and recommendation, the magistrate

1 I n 2 0 0 4 , t h e s t a te d is t r i c t c o u r t r e d u c e d M r . M c N e il ’ s s e n te n c e t o 2 1 ye a r s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t.

2 j u d g e c o n c l u d e d th a t M r . M c N e il p r o c e d u ra ll y d e f a u l t e d o n e a c h c la im a n d

f a il e d to o v e r c o m e t h i s p r o c e d u ra l d e f a u l t b y s h o w i n g c a u s e a n d p re ju d i c e

o r a f u n d a m e n ta l m i s c a rr i a g e o f j u s t i 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

r e c o m m e n d a ti o n a n d d e n ie d M r . M c N e il ’ s p e ti t i o n f o r h a b e a s r e li e f .

II. D ISC USSIO N

B e f o re a p e t i t i o n e r m a y p r o c e e d o n a n a p p e a l f r o m a d e n ie d § 2 2 5 4

p e ti t i o n , h e m u s t r e c e i v e a C O A . 2 8 U .S . C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) . W e m a y i s s u e a

C O A “ o n ly i f [ M r . M c N e il ] h a s m a d 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 .” 2 8 U .S . C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . W h e r e a d is t r i c t c o u r t d o e s

n o t r e a c h t h e m e r i t s o f a § 2 2 5 4 p e t i ti o n b e c a u s e t h e c l a i m w a s p r o c e d u r a l l y

d e f a u l t e d , t h e p e t i ti o n e r s e e k i n g a C O A m u s t a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e “ t h a t j u r i s t s

of reason w ould find it debatable w hether the district court w as correct in its

p r o c e d u r a l r u lin g .” S la c k v . M c D a n ie l, 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) .

H e r e , r e a s o n a b le ju r i s t s w o u l d n o t f in d t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t ’ s p r o c e d u ra l

r u l i n g d e b a t a b l e o r w r o n g . A l l p a r t ie s a g r e e , a n d t h e r e c o r d s h o w s , t h a t M r .

M c N e i l f a i l e d t o r a i s e a n y o f t h e p r e s e n t c l a i m s o n d ir e c t a p p e a l . T h o s e

c l a i m s a r e n o w p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d . B o u s l e y v . U n it e d S ta t e s , 5 2 3 U . S .

6 1 4 , 6 2 1 ( 1 9 9 8 ).

P r o c e d u ra ll y d e f a u l t e d c la im s m a y s t i l l b e r e v ie w e d if th e p r i s o n e r c a n

s h o w ( 1 ) c a u s e f o r t h e d e f a u lt a n d a c t u a l p r e ju d i c e , o r ( 2 ) a f u n d a m e n ta l

m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t ic e d e f i n e d a s “ a c t u a l i n n o c e n [ c e ] . ” I d . a t 6 2 2 . M r .

3 M c N e i l ’ s o n l y s t a t e d c a u s e f o r d e f a u l t in t h e s t a t e c o u r t s i s t h a t h i s c o u r t -

a p p o in t e d a tt o r n e y d e c li n e d to r a is e th e s e c la im s o n d i r e c t a p p e a l b a s e d o n

h i s c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e i r f r i v o l i ty. D e s p i t e d i s p l e a s u r e w i t h a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l ,

M r. M cN eil did not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate

c o u n s e l i n h i s s t a te p o s t - c o n v ic ti o n p r o c e e d i n g s b e c a u s e h e “ n e v e r w i s h e d

to attack or try to sm ear his appellate counsel in court.” R ec. doc. 21, at 4

( P e t i t i o n e r ’s R e s p o n s e to A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ’ s R e s p o n s e o n H a b e a s C o r p u s ,

f i l e d N o v . 2 , 2 0 0 5 ).

L i k e w i s e , M r . M c N e il f a il s t o o f f e r a n y e v id e n c e o f a f u n d a m e n t a l

m i s c a rr i a g e o f j u s t i c e in t h e f o rm o f a “ ‘ c o lo r a b le s h o w i n g o f f a c tu a l

i n n o c e n c e .’ ” S t e e le v . Y o u n g , 1 1 F . 3 d 1 5 1 8 , 1 5 2 2 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( q u o t i n g

H e r r e r a v . C o l li n s , 5 0 6 U .S . 3 9 0 , 4 0 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ) . M r . M c N e i l’ s c l a i m s s k i rt

a c tu a l, f a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e a n d in s t e a d c e n te r o n a la c k o f p r o b a b le c a u s e f o r

h i s a r r e s t. T h e r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , b e l ie s th e a s s e r te d l a c k o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e

a n d il l u s t r a te s t h e d if f ic u lt y M r . M c N e il e x p e ri e n c e s i n p r o d u c in g a

“colorable show ing of factual innocence.” Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI