F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 18 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
KENNETH ARNETT JONES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 04-5130
v. (Northern District of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 01-CV-355-E)
RANDALL G. WORKMAN,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER
Before LUCERO, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Proceeding pro se, Kenneth Arnett Jones seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) from this court so he can appeal the district court’s denial of his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no
appeal may be taken from a final order disposing of a § 2254 petition unless the
petitioner first obtains a COA). Because Jones has not “made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” this court denies his request for a
COA and dismisses this appeal. Id. § 2253(c)(2).
After a jury trial, Jones was convicted of one count of Possession of a
Controlled Dangerous Substance, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2-402 and
was sentenced to ninety-nine years’ incarceration. See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §
51.1(4)(B). Jones appealed his conviction and sentence, raising the following six
arguments: (1) compulsion of defense counsel to try two cases in quick succession
warranted reversal of the conviction; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support
the conviction, (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence in which the chain
of custody had not been established, (4) the trial court erroneously amended the
charge after it partially sustained a motion for directed verdict, (5) the
instructions erroneously directed a verdict on an element of the crime charged,
and (6) prosecutorial misconduct warranted reversal of the sentence. Jones’
conviction and sentence, however, were affirmed on direct appeal by the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) in an unpublished summary
opinion.
Proceeding pro se, Jones then filed a state petition seeking collateral
review. In his post-conviction petition, Jones raised the following issues: (1) the
trial court erred in failing to grant a new petit jury panel, (2) trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to call a potentially exculpatory witness, (3) appellate
counsel was ineffective for failing to raise several issues on appeal, and (4)
appellate counsel labored under a conflict of interest because appellate counsel
and trial counsel were both employed by the Tulsa County Public Defender’s
-2-
Office. The state district court denied Jones’ petition for post-conviction relief
and the OCCA affirmed the denial in an unpublished order.
Jones filed the instant § 2254 habeas petition on May 16, 2001. In his
petition, Jones raised all six issues he presented to the OCCA on direct appeal
together with the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and conflict-of-
interest claims that he raised in his state post-conviction petition. The district
court addressed each claim. The court concluded that, to the extent Jones’ claims
involved only allegations of state law error, the claims were not cognizable in a
federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68
(1991). However, to the extent those claims also implicated Jones’ constitutional
rights, the court analyzed their merits and concluded that Jones was not entitled to
relief because, even assuming error, Jones failed to demonstrate that his trial was
rendered fundamentally unfair. See Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637,
642-48 (1974); Duckett v. Mullin, 306 F.3d 982, 999 (10th Cir. 2002).
The district court then reviewed the constitutional claims that were
previously adjudicated by the Oklahoma state courts. Applying the standard set
forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the district court
concluded that the state courts’ adjudication of those claims was not contrary to,
nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d). Finally, the district court concluded that Jones’ claims of ineffective
-3-
assistance of appellate counsel were procedurally defaulted in Oklahoma state
court because he failed to set forth facts sufficient to support them. The district
court determined that Jones failed to show cause for the default and actual
prejudice or that the failure to review his claims would result in a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991).
This court cannot grant Jones a COA unless he can demonstrate “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) (quotations omitted). In evaluating whether
Jones has carried his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though not
definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his
claims. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003). Jones is not
required to demonstrate that his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA. He
must, however, “prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the
existence of mere good faith.” Id. (quotations omitted).
This court has reviewed Jones’ application for a COA and appellate brief,
the district court’s order, and the entire record on appeal pursuant to the
framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El and concludes that Jones is
not entitled to a COA. The district court’s resolution of Jones’ claims is not
-4-
reasonably subject to debate and the claims are not adequate to deserve further
proceedings. Accordingly, Jones has not “made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right” and is not entitled to a COA. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2).
This court denies Jones’ request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk of Court
By
Deputy Clerk
-5-