No. 5:15-CV-01108-D (W.D. Okla.)
LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
L Hartz, Circuit Judge.
Bobby Maness is serving a 15-year sentence in Oklahoma for
second-degree rape. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed his conviction. He then applied for relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma, which rejected his claims.
Now he seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal
the denial of relief by the district court. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring COA to appeal final
order in habeas proceeding challenging state-court
detention). We decline to grant a COA and dismiss the appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
will issue "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 "a
demonstration that . . . includes showing that reasonable
jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree
that) 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). In other words, the applicant must show that
the district court's resolution of the constitutional
claim was either "debatable or wrong." Id.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA), provides that when a claim has been adjudicated on
the merits in a state court, a federal court can grant habeas
relief only if the applicant establishes that the state-court
decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,"
or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court
proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). As we
Under the "contrary to" clause, we grant relief
only if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to
that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if
the state court decides a case differently than the [Supreme]
Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.
Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir.
2004) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Relief
is provided under the "unreasonable application"
clause only if the state court identifies the correct
governing legal principle from the Supreme Court's
decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the
facts of the prisoner's case. Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). Thus, a federal court may not issue
a habeas writ simply because it concludes in its independent
judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied
clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.
See id. Rather, that application must have been
unreasonable. Of course, "AEDPA's deferential
treatment of state court decisions must be incorporated into
our consideration of a habeas petitioner's request for
COA." Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 938 (10th
Sufficiency of the Evidence
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
conviction on two grounds. First, he claims that the acts at
issue were consensual and the State failed to prove
otherwise. Second, he argues that the "testimony was
inconsistent and contradictory and uncorroborated, and
therefore unreliable, under the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard." Aplt. Br. at 4
victim was a woman living in a nursing home. She testified at
trial that she awoke one day to find Applicant, with whom she
was friendly but not romantic, standing over her and touching
her private areas beneath the covers. She told him no.
Applicant then directed her to stand and remove her clothing,
whereupon he continued to touch her sexually. She testified
that he grabbed her and she repeatedly told him to stop.
Applicant recounted nearly identical details under police
questioning and in a written statement but claimed the
encounter had been consensual. At trial, however, Applicant
denied even touching the victim. Nurses at the home described
seeing redness on the victim's chest afterwards, a bruise
on her arm that the victim said was related to the incident,
and behavior indicating a traumatic experience.
appeal the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) ruled
that "there was ample evidence to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that [Applicant] forced himself on the
victim without her consent and that he committed
Second-Degree Rape by Instrumentation." Maness v.
State, No. F-2014-568 at 2. Applicant has not shown that
a reasonable jurist could debate that the OCCA's