F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 12 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ERNIE SACOMAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 97-2148
(D.C. No. CIV-96-128-JP)
JOE WILLIAMS, Warden; (D. N.M.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted in New Mexico state
court of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, armed robbery,
conspiracy to commit armed robbery and tampering with evidence. His
conviction was affirmed on appeal, and petitioner has exhausted his state post-
conviction remedies. Petitioner requested habeas corpus relief in the district
court, and the district court dismissed his petition, adopting the findings and
recommendation of the magistrate judge. On de novo review, we agree with the
district court’s legal conclusions and we find no clear error in its factual findings.
See Brewer v. Reynolds, 51 F.3d 1519, 1522 (10th Cir. 1995). 1
Petitioner presents five arguments on appeal: (1) juror misconduct violated
his constitutional right to a fair trial and necessitates a new trial; (2) there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (3) the trial court violated his
constitutional right to a fair trial by refusing to order the state to produce the
psychological records of a witness who testified against petitioner; (4) his right to
a fair trial was violated because the prosecution questioned petitioner about a
1
Because the petition was filed before the effective date of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, no certificate of appealability is
necessary. See United States v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.2 (10th Cir.
1997). We, therefore, construe petitioner’s notice of appeal as requesting a
certificate of probable cause. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) (prior to amendment by
AEDPA).
-2-
previous juvenile adjudication; and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel violated
his rights under the Sixth Amendment.
At trial, petitioner presented an alibi defense that he was at work as a
busboy at the time of the murder. During deliberations, one juror gave a factual
account of his experience as a busboy, and a second juror fabricated a story about
a conversation she had with a payroll clerk about paying employees even though
the clerk couldn’t confirm the hours worked. On direct appeal, the New Mexico
Supreme Court held that these incidents introduced “extraneous information” into
the jury deliberations, R. Vol. I, tab 12, Ex. E at 5, but that petitioner was not
prejudiced by the misconduct. The trial court held a hearing and found that the
extraneous information was imparted to the jury after they had unanimously
agreed that petitioner was not at work at the time of the murder. This finding of
fact by the state court after hearing is presumed correct, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d),
and petitioner does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence upon which this
finding was based. Therefore, the district court’s conclusion that petitioner
suffered no prejudice as a result of the injection of extraneous information during
the jury deliberations, because of the timing, is correct. See Brecht v.
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 638 (1993) (holding that trial errors are
collaterally reviewed to determine whether they had “substantial and injurious
effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict”).
-3-
Petitioner characterizes his next argument as disputing the sufficiency of
the evidence supporting his conviction. In fact, petitioner’s argument takes issue
with the jury’s credibility determinations and the weight it afforded the
conflicting evidence presented. Petitioner points to the evidence in support of his
alibi defense and argues that the jury should have reached a different conclusion
in light of that evidence. Review of the sufficiency of the evidence is
sharply limited and a court faced with a record of historical facts that
supports conflicting inferences must presume--even if it does not
affirmatively appear in the record--that the trier of fact resolved any
such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that
resolution. The [c]ourt may not weigh conflicting evidence nor
consider the credibility of witnesses. Rather, the [c]ourt must accept
the jury’s resolution of the evidence as long as it is within the bounds
of reason.
Messer v. Roberts, 74 F.3d 1009, 1013 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotations omitted).
Petitioner acknowledges that, in addition to his alibi evidence, the jury
heard testimony from two witnesses, who were originally charged as
codefendants, that petitioner shot the victim in the course of a robbery gone
wrong. There was also testimony from other witnesses that, on the day after the
murder, petitioner reenacted how he shot the victim. The jury chose to credit the
testimony against petitioner and did not believe his alibi defense. Petitioner does
not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence the jury chose to credit in convicting
him, he argues that the jury credited the wrong evidence. We will not weigh
conflicting evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses. See id.
-4-
Next, petitioner argues constitutional error regarding two evidentiary
matters. He claims he was denied a fair trial when the trial court did not grant his
request to discover, for use at trial, psychological records of one of the former
codefendants who testified against him. The trial court reviewed the
psychological records in camera and denied petitioner’s request on the basis of
relevancy. Petitioner also argues that the prosecutor’s questions on cross-
examination about why he left high school induced him to testify regarding a
prior juvenile adjudication.
“[W]e will not question the evidentiary or procedural rulings of the state
court unless [petitioner] can show that because of the court’s actions, his trial, as
a whole, was rendered fundamentally unfair.” Maes v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 979, 987
(10th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Petitioner has failed to make such a
showing. Petitioner details in his brief on appeal that his counsel effectively
utilized cross-examination for impeachment purposes, and he does not show how
his lack of discovery of the psychological records rendered his trial fundamentally
unfair. Further, petitioner does not show that his response on cross-examination
revealing a juvenile adjudication was prompted by the questioning, nor does he
show that the revelation resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial.
Finally, petitioner claims he was denied his constitutional right to effective
assistance of counsel. To that end, petitioner must show both that his attorney’s
-5-
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that
petitioner’s defense was prejudiced by the deficient performance. See Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 688 (1984). Petitioner complains that
counsel’s demeanor was uncaring and lacking in professionalism, as compared to
petitioner’s first trial, which ended in a mistrial. He also claims counsel failed to
object at appropriate times and that counsel’s failure to confer with and prepare
petitioner before the second trial was the cause of petitioner giving answers on
cross-examination that went beyond the scope of the question. Petitioner also
argues that counsel’s closing argument was deficient because counsel did not
point out that the evidence proved petitioner’s innocence. Other than the
conclusory statement that the outcome of the trial would have been different,
petitioner has not shown how the alleged errors prejudiced his defense, and
neither has petitioner shown that counsel’s performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness.
Petitioner’s application for a certificate of probable cause is DENIED, and
the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-6-