PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Applicant Nicholas Cutshall's pro se Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Docket No. 1], filed on March 4, 2011. Respondents have filed an Answer [Docket No. 20]. Applicant has not filed a Traverse. Having considered the Application and Answer, along with the state court record, the Court concludes that the Application should be denied.
On August 3, 2007, a jury in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado ("the trial court"), Case No. 06CR3968, convicted Applicant of one count of sexual assault on a child (pattern of abuse) and five counts of sexual assault on a child. State Court R. 8/03/07 Trial Tr., at 92-93. The pertinent facts were summarized by the Colorado Court of Appeals as follows:
People v. Cutshall, No. 07CA2413 (Colo. App. Nov. 19, 2009) (unpublished opinion), Docket No. 9-4, at 1-2.
The state trial court sentenced Applicant to a prison term of eighteen years to life on the pattern count and concurrent terms of six years to life on each of the remaining counts. State Court R. 10/26/07 Sentencing Hrg., at 31-32.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed Applicant's conviction on direct appeal. Docket No. 9-4. The Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari review on March 22, 2010. Docket No. 9-6.
Applicant filed a motion for post conviction relief to reconsider his sentence pursuant to Colo. Crim. P. Rule 35(b) on August 18, 2010, which the trial court denied on September 2, 2010. Docket No. 9-1. He did not appeal the trial court's order.
Applicant filed his § 2254 Application on March 4, 2011. He asserts three claims: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the child victim's hearsay statements at trial; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress coerced inculpatory statements he made during a police interrogation; and (3) the trial court deprived him of a fair trial when it: (a) improperly admitted a DVD recording of Applicant's police interview; (b) erroneously allowed the prosecution's investigator to discuss interrogation techniques; and (c) erroneously denied the motion for a mistrial.
Upon preliminary review of the Application, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ordered the Respondents to file a pre-answer response addressing the affirmative defenses of timeliness and exhaustion of state remedies. Respondents conceded that the action was timely under the AEDPA, but asserted that claims 1, 3(b) and 3(c) were not exhausted because Applicant failed to present those claims to the state courts as federal constitutional claims. The Court disagreed with Respondents and found that Applicant exhausted state court remedies for all of his claims. See July 14, 2011 Order [Docket No. 13]. The case was drawn to a District Judge and to a Magistrate Judge. Id. The Court reviews the merits of the claims below.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides that a writ of habeas corpus may not be issued with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court adjudication:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Applicant bears the burden of proof under § 2254(d). See Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 25 (2002) (per curiam).
The court reviews claims of legal error and mixed questions of law and fact pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Cook v. McKune, 323 F.3d 825, 830 (10th Cir. 2003). The threshold question the Court must answer under § 2254(d)(1) is whether Applicant seeks to apply a rule of law that was clearly established by the Supreme Court at the time his conviction became final. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390 (2000). Clearly established federal law "refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision." Id. at 412. Furthermore,
House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010, 1016 (10th Cir. 2008). If there is no clearly established federal law, that is the end of the court's inquiry pursuant to § 2254(d)(1). See id. at 1018. If a clearly established rule of federal law is implicated, the court must determine whether the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of that clearly established rule of federal law. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 404-05.
House, 527 F.3d at 1018.
The court's inquiry pursuant to the "unreasonable application" clause is an objective inquiry. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-10. "[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather that application must also be unreasonable." Id. at 411. "[A] decision is `objectively unreasonable' when most reasonable jurists exercising their independent judgment would conclude the state court misapplied Supreme Court law." Maynard, 468 F.3d at 671. In addition,
Harrington v. Richter, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786 (2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
In conducting this analysis, the court "must determine what arguments or theories supported or . . . could have supported[ ] the state court's decision" and then "ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of [the Supreme] Court." Id. Moreover, "review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits." Cullen v. Pinholster, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011).
Under this standard, "only the most serious misapplications of Supreme Court precedent will be a basis for relief under § 2254." Maynard, 468 F.3d at 671; see also Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 786 (stating that "even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable").
Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 786-87. The Court "owe[s] deference to the state court's result, even if its reasoning is not expressly stated." Aycox v. Lytle, 196 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) Thus, "[w]here a state court's decision is unaccompanied by an explanation, the habeas petitioner's burden still must be met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief." Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 784.
Claims asserting factual errors are reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). See Romano v. Gibson, 278 F.3d 1145, 1154 n. 4 (10th Cir. 2002). Section 2254(d)(2) allows the court to grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the relevant state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented to the state court. Pursuant to § 2254(e)(1), the court presumes that the state court's factual determinations are correct and Applicant bears the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. "The standard is demanding but not insatiable . . . [because] `[d]eference does not by definition preclude relief.'" Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005) (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003)).
If a claim was not adjudicated on the merits in state court, and if the claim also is not procedurally barred, the court must review the claim de novo and the deferential standards of § 2254(d) do not apply. See Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir. 2004).
Applicant is proceeding pro se. The court, therefore, "review[s] his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold[s] them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys." Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, a pro se litigant's "conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991). A court may not assume that an applicant can prove facts that have not been alleged or that a respondent has violated laws in ways that an applicant has not alleged. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). The Applicant's pro se status does not entitle him to an application of different rules. See Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 957 (10th Cir. 2002).
In his first claim, Applicant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting the child victim's hearsay statements. Application, at 5. The Court construes Applicant's first claim liberally as alleging a violation of his Sixth Amendment confrontation right. The Court determined previously that Applicant exhausted this claim in the state courts as a Sixth Amendment confrontation claim. See Docket No. 13, at 4-5 (citing Applicant's opening brief on direct appeal of his conviction, Docket No. 9-2, at 6-11 of 26). Applicant also argued to the state appellate court that the admission of the child hearsay statements violated state law. However, "federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law." Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court held that a trial court's admission of testimonial hearsay against a defendant at trial violates the defendant's confrontation rights unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination. But "when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9 (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 142, 162 (1970)).
The state appellate court rejected Applicant's claim on the merits pursuant to a state statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(1)(b)(I) (2006) (child hearsay statute), as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Argomaniz-Ramirez, 102 P.3d 1015 (Colo. 2004). Docket No. 9-4, at 3-7. In Argomaniz-Ramirez, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the admission of out-of-court statements by child witnesses at a defendant's trial would not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because the hearsay declarants were going to testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination. 102 P.3d at 1018. In reaching its conclusion, the court in Argomaniz-Ramirez relied on California v. Green, 399 U.S. 142 (1970), noting that Green had not been overruled by Crawford. Id. Green held that "the Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting a declarant's out-of-court statements, as long as the declarant is testifying as a witness and subject to full and effective cross-examination." 399 U.S. at 158. In Applicant's case, the child witnesses were also available and testified at trial. The Court thus finds that the state appellate court's disposition of Applicant's claim was consistent with controlling federal law. As such, Applicant cannot prevail on his first claim.
For his second claim, Applicant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress inculpatory statements he made during a police interrogation. Application, at 6. Applicant maintains that the detective who questioned him for two and a half hours made false representations about the victims' statements to coerce Applicant's confession. Id.
Incriminating statements obtained by government acts, threats, or promises that permit the defendant's will to be overborne run afoul of the Fifth Amendment and are inadmissible at trial as evidence of guilt. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 7 (1964). Without more, however, misrepresentations, ruses, and trickery by questioning authorities do not render an otherwise voluntary confession involuntary. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969) (interrogator's misrepresentation to suspect that accomplice had already confessed did not render suspect's confession coerced). In determining whether a defendant's inculpatory statements were voluntary, the Court considers the following factors under a totality-of-the-circumstances test: (1) the age, intelligence, and education of the defendant; (2) the length of the detention; (3) the length and nature of the questioning; (4) whether the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights; and (5) whether the defendant was subjected to physical punishment. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973); see also Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). The Court is mindful that "coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not `voluntary.'" Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986).
Before trial, Applicant filed a motion to suppress his statements to the police. The detective who interviewed Applicant testified at an evidentiary hearing that he lied to Applicant about statements made by the victims in an effort to elicit a full confession. State Court R. 6/21/07 Hr. Tr., at 37-59. The detective further testified that he told Applicant he would get him "help" if he confessed, but did not make any representations to Applicant about potential criminal penalties or prison time. Id. at 41-42, 60-63. The trial court ruled that Applicant received adequate Miranda warnings and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent in responding to police questions. State Court R., 6/21/07 Hrg. Tr., at 101-111.
The Colorado Court of Appeals evaluated Applicant's claim under a state law "totality of the circumstances" test similar to the federal standard, Docket No. 9-4, at 8-10, and determined the following:
Id. at 9-12.
The state courts' factual findings are presumed correct and are supported by the detective's testimony at the evidentiary hearing on Applicant's motion to suppress. See generally State Court R. 6/21/07 Hrg. Tr. Applicant has not pointed to any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the state appellate court's application of the totality-of-the circumstances test was consistent with federal law. There is no dispute that Applicant was advised of his Miranda rights, that he acknowledged he understood those rights, and that he freely and voluntarily executed a waiver of those rights. Applicant does not claim that the detective threatened or injured him during the ensuing interrogation or that Applicant was in any way fearful. Cf. Connelly, 479 U.S. at 163-64 at n. 1 (collecting cases where circumstances warranted Court's conclusion that police coercion was present). The state appellate court's determination that the detective's actions were not so egregious as to warrant the conclusion that Applicant's will was overborne was not "so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement. Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 786-87; see also Frazier, 394 U.S. at 739. Accordingly, Applicant cannot prevail on his second claim.
In claim three, Applicant asserts that the trial court's evidentiary rulings deprived him of a fair trial. Specifically, Applicant claims that the trial court erred in: (a) admitting a DVD recording of his police interview; (b) allowing the prosecution's investigator to discuss interrogation techniques; and (c) denying his motion for a mistrial. Application, at 6.
Errors of state law are not redressable in a federal habeas proceeding unless the error was "so grossly prejudicial that it fatally infected the trial and denied the fundamental fairness that is the essence of due process." Hooker v. Mullin, 293 F.3d 1232, 1238 (10th Cir. 2002); see also Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67. The fundamental fairness inquiry compels examination of the entire proceedings. See Le v. Mullin, 311 F.3d 1002, 1013 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974) (citation omitted)). Further, "because a fundamental fairness analysis is not subject to clearly definable legal elements, when engaged in such an endeavor a federal court must tread gingerly and exercise considerable self restraint." Duckett v. Mullin, 306 F.3d 982, 999 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, a federal habeas petitioner is not entitled to relief for a constitutional violation that occurred during a state criminal proceeding unless "the . . . error [at issue] `had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'" Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)).
With the foregoing legal principles in mind, the Court addresses each of Applicant's allegations in claim three below.
Applicant challenges the trial court's admission of the DVD recording of his police interview as a violation of his Sixth Amendment confrontation right because the interviewing detective was not available for cross-examination at trial.
Applicant raised a confrontation clause objection at trial. State Court R. 7/31/07 Trial Tr., at 51-56. The trial court found that Applicant's confrontation right was implicated, but ruled that the DVD recording was admissible, Id. at 67-68, and gave the jury the following limiting instruction:
Id. at 74-75.
At the end of trial, the jury was further instructed:
State Court R., Court File, Jury Instruction No. 6.
On direct appeal, the state appellate court assumed, without deciding, that admission of the DVD recording violated the Applicant's right to confrontation, but concluded that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Docket No. 9-4, at 14. The court reasoned:
Further, both DH1 and DH2 testified, and were thoroughly cross-examined at trial. Both children testified that [Applicant] had taken pictures of their "privates" and had touched them in the vaginal areas. Moreover, [Applicant's] oral confessions, during his interview with the detective, provided overwhelming evidence of guilt. Therefore, any error in admitting the DVD recording was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. at 14-15.
The Court must uphold the state appellate court's resolution of Applicant's claim on the basis of harmless error, so long as that determination was consistent with federal law. Under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967), a constitutional error is harmless if it appears "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained."
The Court, having carefully reviewed the state court record, finds that the trial testimony and statements of the victims and the Applicant's confession and cross-examination provide ample support for the jury's verdict. State Court R. 7/31/07 Trial Tr., at 139-166; 8/1/07 Trial Tr., at 9-40; 8/2/07 Trial Tr., at 56-102. Furthermore, any prejudice to Applicant from the detective's statements and leading questions during the videotaped interview was minimized by the admission of the transcript of Applicant's cross-examination of the detective at a pre-trial hearing. State Court R. 6/21/07 Hrg Tr., at 37-59; 7/31/07 Trial Tr., at 84-110. In addition, the trial court's limiting instruction to the jurors that they not consider the detective's statements and leading questions as evidence further reduced any potential prejudicial impact. The Court finds that the state appellate court's decision comported with Chapman given that any constitutional error in admitting the detective's questions did not, beyond a reasonable doubt, contribute to the jury's verdict. See Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d 1215, 1233 n.14 (10th Cir. 2003) (instructing that when "there is a state-court-Chapman determination to defer to under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)," the court must decide "whether the state court's finding of harmless error was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Chapman"). Applicant therefore is not entitled to federal habeas relief on this claim. See also Brecht, 507 U.S. at 623.
Applicant next asserts that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court erroneously allowed the prosecution's investigator to discuss interrogation techniques.
At trial, Applicant objected to the investigator's testimony as improper expert opinion testimony because the investigator had not been endorsed as an expert pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. State Court R. 7/31/07 Trial Tr., at 111-113. The state trial court ruled that the investigator would be allowed to testify based on his own personal experience, but could not offer any opinions. Id. at 114. The witness then testified in response to questions from the prosecutor that he has lied to suspects during interrogations in an attempt to elicit confessions. Id. at 115.
Applicant argued to the state appellate court on direct appeal that the trial court erred in admitting the investigator's testimony because it bolstered the credibility of the detective who interviewed Applicant using the same technique, but Applicant was precluded from cross-examining the detective at trial about his misrepresentations. Docket No. 9-2, at 16.
The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected Applicant's claim that the admission of the investigator's testimony deprived him of a fair trial based on the following reasoning:
Docket No. 9-4, at 17-18.
Again, this Court's task is to determine whether the state appellate court's application of the harmless error standard comported with Chapman. Spears, 343 F.3d at 1233 n.14. The Colorado Court of Appeals' factual finding that the investigator's testimony about interrogation techniques was not central to establishing the Applicant's guilt was reasonable in light of the victims' testimony at trial about Applicant's sexual abuse, the child hearsay statements admitted through the testimony of the victims' older sister and the patrol officers who responded to a dispatch call at the victims' residence, and Applicant's confession. State Court R. 7/31/07 Trial Tr., at 73, 146-65; 8/01/08 Trial Tr., at 22-40, 75-80, 157-62, 204-09. The investigator's testimony about his prior experience in lying to criminal suspects was limited and was not emphasized by the prosecution. As such, the state appellate court's determination that the trial court's admission of the testimony was harmless was consistent with Chapman. Applicant thus cannot prevail on this claim. See also Brecht, 507 U.S. at 623.
Finally, Applicant claims that he was deprived of a fair trial when the trial court denied his motion for a mistrial after the prosecution elicited testimony about a child hearsay statement and improper expert opinion testimony that the trial court had ruled, in limine, was inadmissible.
Applicant first asserts that he was entitled to a mistrial because, during testimony from the victim's grandmother, the prosecution elicited a child hearsay statement that the trial court had ruled was inadmissible because it was unduly prejudicial. See Docket No. 9-2, at 17-18. On direct appeal, the state appellate court determined that a mistrial was not warranted with regard to the admission of the hearsay statement based on the following trial proceedings:
Docket No. 9-4, at 19-21.
The Colorado Court of Appeals' factual finding that the hearsay statement was cumulative to the Applicant's confession and other admissible testimony is presumed correct in this federal habeas proceeding and is supported by the state court record. Applicant has not pointed to any clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate how the admission of the hearsay statement prejudiced him at trial. The Court finds that the state appellate court's determination was reasonable in light of the evidence presented at trial and was consistent with federal due process law. Because admission of the hearsay did not render Applicant's trial as a whole fundamentally unfair, he is not entitled to federal habeas relief for this claim.
Applicant next asserts that he was entitled to a mistrial because the prosecution's expert witness gave opinion testimony concerning delayed disclosure of sexual abuse that the trial court had ruled was unreliable, and therefore, inadmissible. See Docket No. 9-2, at 18-20.
The trial court held a pre-trial hearing to determine the reliability of the clinical social worker's proffered expert testimony.
On direct appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined the following as to Applicant's claim:
Docket No. 9-4, at 22.
The Court finds that the state appellate court's determination that Applicant was not prejudiced by the social worker's testimony was a reasonable application of federal due process law. The testimony of the fact witnesses, including Applicant's own confession, overwhelmingly established Applicant's guilt. There is no substantial likelihood that the expert's limited improper opinions tipped the scales against Applicant so as to deprive him of a fair trial. Applicant therefore cannot prevail on his claim for federal habeas relief.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Applicant Nicholas Cutshall's Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Docket No. 1], filed March 4, 2011, is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not issue because Applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 11(a); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-85 (2000). It is further
ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.
