Filed: Apr. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 18, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PATRICIA BURNEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 17-7059 (D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00374-RAW-KEW) DEBBIE ALDRIDGE, Warden, (E.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. _ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* _ Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. _ Patricia Burney, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of ap
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 18, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PATRICIA BURNEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 17-7059 (D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00374-RAW-KEW) DEBBIE ALDRIDGE, Warden, (E.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. _ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* _ Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. _ Patricia Burney, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of app..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 18, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
PATRICIA BURNEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 17-7059
(D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00374-RAW-KEW)
DEBBIE ALDRIDGE, Warden, (E.D. Okla.)
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Patricia Burney, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate
of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254
habeas petition. We deny her request for a COA and dismiss this matter.
Ms. Burney was convicted after a jury trial of one count of first-degree murder.
She was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On direct appeal, the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed her conviction and sentence.
Ms. Burney was represented by counsel at trial and on appeal, but she filed her § 2254
habeas petition pro se. The district court denied her habeas petition and denied a COA.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Ms. Burney now seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of her habeas petition.
To do so, she must first obtain a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We will grant a COA
only if Ms. Burney makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
Id. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this standard, she must “show[] 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, 483-84 (2000) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Ms. Burney asserted six claims in her habeas petition: 1) the uncorroborated
testimony of accomplices Michelle Burney and Michael Richardson was legally
insufficient to convict her of murder; 2) the state failed to disclose exculpatory
impeachment evidence for its key witness and failed to correct the witness’s false
testimony; 3) the trial court violated her rights to due process and a fair trial by admitting
improper character evidence; 4) the trial court violated her rights to due process and a fair
trial by admitting gruesome photographs; 5) the trial court abused its discretion by failing
to give defense counsel’s proposed instruction on witness credibility; and 6) the
accumulation of errors deprived her of a fair trial.
The OCCA rejected these claims on the merits. In order to obtain federal habeas
relief, Ms. Burney must show the OCCA’s decision was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law or was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In a
2
thorough, well-reasoned order, the district court addressed the OCCA’s treatment of each
of Ms. Burney’s claims and determined she was not entitled to habeas relief.
We have reviewed Ms. Burney’s arguments, the record, the OCCA’s decision, the
district court’s order denying habeas relief, and the applicable law. Based on this review,
we conclude Ms. Burney has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate
the correctness of the district court’s resolution of her petition. We therefore deny her
request for a COA and dismiss this matter.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
3