F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
August 22, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
C ECILIO P. FA BELA ,
Petitioner-A ppellant, No. 06-6117
v. (W .D. Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. CIV-05-799-L)
RON W ARD, W arden,
Respondent-Appellee.
OR DER
Before H E N RY, BR ISC OE, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Cecilio Fabela, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s decision
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. M r. Fabela
also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). In his § 2254 petition, M r.
Fabela raised seven claims regarding denial of due process, ineffective assistance
of counsel, and the prosecution’s failure to disclose a toxicology report favorable
to his defense. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in
its well-reasoned order, we deny M r. Fabela’s application for a COA, deny his
request to proceed IFP, and dismiss this matter.
I. BACKGROUND
M r. Fabela was charged in Oklahoma state court with first degree murder
for the death of his wife, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct review.
M r. Fabela also sought postconviction relief before the O klahoma state courts,
which was denied.
In his § 2254 petition, and before us, M r. Fabela raises seven propositions
of error. He contends: (1) he was denied an impartial jury because the State
exercised its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors on the basis of
race in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); (2) the trial court’s
refusal to give M r. Fabela’s requested jury instructions on issues related to
sentencing violated his Fourteenth Amendments due process rights; (3) the
cumulative effect of various trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct denied him
a fundamentally fair trial; (4) M r. Fabela’s sentence of life without parole is
excessive and violates the Eighth Amendment; (5) M r. Fabela received ineffective
assistance of trial and (6) appellate counsel; and (7) the State failed to disclose a
toxicology report in violation of Brady v. M aryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). M r.
Fabela did not raise the ineffective assistance claims or the Brady claim until he
filed his post-conviction proceedings in state court.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of each of the above claims
and recommended the denial of habeas relief. The district court adopted the
2
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and denied M r. Fabela’s
application for a certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons
provided in the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned report and
recommendation, we reject M r. Fabela’s arguments.
II. DISCUSSION
A COA can issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with
the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could
conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” M iller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). A petitioner is entitled
to federal habeas relief only if 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).
W e hold that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ application of the
Batson burden-framew ork was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of
clearly established law. See Rice v. Collins, 126 S. Ct 969, 976 (2006)
(“Reasonable minds reviewing the record might disagree about the prosecutor's
credibility, but on habeas review that does not suffice to supersede the trial
3
court’s credibility determination.”). As to the jury instructions claim, we agree
that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ adjudication of this issue was not
an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. As to the cumulative
error claim, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ resolution of this issue is
subject to deference, and we agree that any trial errors did not render M r.
Fabela’s trial fundamentally unfair, given the weight of the evidence against him.
W e agree that the Eighth Amendment claim based on an excessive sentence
should also be denied.
As to the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, we agree with the
magistrate judge and district court that M r. Fabela cannot show cause for his
procedural default of this claim, not can he demonstrate that failure to consider
the claim will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Coleman v.
Thom pson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991); English v. Cody, 146 F.3d 1257, 1259 (10th
Cir. 1998).
As to the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we agree with the
detailed analysis of the magistrate judge that the omitted issues are meritless. See
Rec. doc. 15 at 27-35 (M ag. Rep. and Recommendation, filed Jan. 30, 2006).
Finally, with respect to the Brady claim, M r. Fabela alleged ineffective assistance
of appellate counsel as cause to overcome the procedural bar. W e agree with the
magistrate judge’s examination of the merits of this claim. M r. Fabela failed to
demonstrate that there existed a toxicology report not disclosed by the State.
4
W e have carefully reviewed M r. Fabela’s brief, the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, district court’s disposition, and the record on appeal.
Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or M r. Fabela’s filings raises an issue
which meets our standards for the grant of a COA. For substantially the same
reasons set forth by the district court, we are not persuaded that jurists of reason
would disagree with the district court’s disposition of M r. Fabela’s § 2254
petition.
III. CONCLUSION
W e DENY M r. Fabela’s request for a certificate of appealability, deny his
motion to proceed IFP, and DISM ISS the matter.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
5