F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 8 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 02-6243
v. (D. Ct. No. 98-CV-125-L)
(W.D. Oklahoma)
CARNELL D. BRUMFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Carnell D. Brumfield, a federal prisoner, requests a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas
petition. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in its
Order of March 7, 2002, we deny a COA.
In 1995, Brumfield was convicted of armed robbery in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Brumfield was sentenced to a total of 106
months on the two counts. He then appealed to this court, and we affirmed his
conviction. United States v. Brumfield, No. 96-6026 (10th Cir. Nov. 29, 1996). 1
On January 26, 1998, Brumfield timely filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, claiming that his attorney was ineffective in thirty-three ways. 2 Rejecting
Brumfield’s arguments, the district court denied habeas relief.
Because Brumfield’s petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective
date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), AEDPA’s
provisions apply to this case. See Rogers v. Gibson, 173 F.3d 1278, 1282 n.1
(10th Cir. 1999) (citing Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997)). AEDPA
provides that a petitioner may not appeal a denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 unless a COA is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA may be
issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” § 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) (quotation omitted).
Because the district court denied Brumfield’s application for a COA, we proceed
to analyze whether a COA should have been granted.
1
The Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 31, 1997. Brumfield v.
United States, 520 U.S. 1161 (1997).
2
Because Brumfield’s numerous claims are adequately set forth in the
district court’s order, we will not repeat them here.
In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the Supreme Court
articulated the standard for determining whether counsel provided ineffective
assistance. First, the petitioner “must show that counsel’s performance was
deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel
was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth
Amendment.” Id. at 687. Second, the petitioner “must show that the deficient
performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors
were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is
reliable.” Id. With regard to the first prong, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s
performance must be highly deferential,” and the court must avoid “the distorting
effects of hindsight.” Id. at 689. There is a strong presumption that counsel’s
actions “might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Having reviewed petitioner’s appellate brief, the district court’s opinion,
and the material portions of the record on appeal, we conclude that Brumfield has
failed to make a debatable showing that both Strickland prongs were met with
respect to any of his claims. Most of counsel’s alleged errors fall “within the
wide range of reasonable professional assistance that might be considered sound
trial strategy.” Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086, 1096 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). As to the remaining claims, involving (1) the jury
instructions, (2) a comment made during the government’s closing argument, and
(3) the joint trial of Brumfield with a co-defendant, we agree with the district
court that Brumfield has shown no prejudice resulting from the alleged errors
committed by his counsel. No reasonable jurist would conclude that Brumfield’s
habeas petition should have been granted. Accordingly, Brumfield has failed to
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). Brumfield’s application for a COA is DENIED. Brumfield’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis before this court is GRANTED, and this
matter is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk of Court
By:
Deputy Clerk