Morris v. Wyoming Attorney General

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: December 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-8087
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-8087 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 12/03/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 3, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court TERRILL KIM MORRIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 24-8087 (D.C. No. 2:24-CV-00120-ABJ) WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL; (D. Wyo.) STATE OF WYOMING,

Respondents - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________

Before HARTZ, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Terrill Morris is currently serving a sentence of life without parole on two

convictions under Wyoming law for sexual abuse of a minor. He requests a certificate of

appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal by the United States District Court for the

District of Wyoming of his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We deny a

COA and dismiss this matter.

A jury convicted Mr. Morris on two counts: second-degree sexual abuse of a

minor in violation of Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-315(a)(ii) and third-degree sexual abuse of a minor

in violation of Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-316(a)(iv). The charges stemmed from two incidents

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-8087 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 12/03/2025 Page: 2

with a seven-year-old boy, D.A., who was not related to Mr. Morris. Mr. Morris applied

ointment to D.A.’s bottom on one occasion and showered with D.A. on another. The

state district court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole on the

first count and, consecutively, to 8 to 15 years’ imprisonment on the second count.

Mr. Morris appealed his conviction. His counseled brief to the Wyoming Supreme

Court advanced only a single issue: whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to

support his conviction for second-degree sexual assault. See Morris v. State, 523 P.3d

293, 299 n.3 (Wyo. 2023). Although at oral argument he challenged the sufficiency of

the evidence of his conduct, that was too late to raise the matter. See id.

Mr. Morris also sought leave to file a pro se supplemental brief raising as issues

the admission of evidence of a prior Washington conviction, his right to confront his

accuser because D.A. did not testify, and the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel in cross-

examining D.A’s mother. The Wyoming Supreme Court denied his motion to

supplement counsel’s brief and affirmed the conviction. Id. at 301.

Mr. Morris then filed a petition for postconviction relief in state court, arguing

ineffective assistance of trial counsel, denial of his right to confront his accuser, improper

admission of Rule 404(b) evidence, insufficient evidence of intent, and ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel. The state court rejected these arguments and dismissed

the petition; the Wyoming Supreme Court summarily denied review.

Mr. Morris then filed his § 2254 application, raising essentially the same issues he

raised in his Wyoming postconviction petition. The district court granted the state’s

motion to dismiss and denied a COA.

2 Appellate Case: 24-8087 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 12/03/2025 Page: 3

To appeal the denial of his § 2254 petition, Mr. Morris must obtain a COA by

“showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, the district court dismissed some of

his claims on procedural grounds, he must show concerning those claims “that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. Our consideration of a COA request

incorporates the “deferential treatment of state court decisions” in the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 938 (10th Cir.

2004). To obtain relief under AEDPA, “a state prisoner must show that the state court’s

ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that

there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any

possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103

(2011).

Mr. Morris’s COA Application falls well short of these standards. Although he

recites the various standards of review for the five issues he raised below, he addresses

his specific claims with such generality that no reasonable person could be thereby

persuaded that the rulings of the district court are debatable. Because this court “will not

make arguments for a party that it did not make in its briefs,” Griffith v. El Paso Cnty.,

129 F.4th 790, 817 (10th Cir. 2025) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted),

3 Appellate Case: 24-8087 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 12/03/2025 Page: 4

petition for cert. filed (U.S. Oct. 10, 2025) (No. 25-442), we have no choice but to deny

Mr. Morris’s application for a COA and dismiss this matter.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge