Bush v. Carpenter
Decision Date | 10 June 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 16-6318,16-6318 |
Citation | 926 F.3d 644 |
Parties | Ronson Kyle BUSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike CARPENTER, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Josh Lee, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Colorado, Denver, Colorado (Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, and Mark Henricksen, Henricksen & Henricksen, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with him on the briefs), appearing for Appellant.
Caroline E.J. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General (Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma and Jennifer J. Dickson, Assistant Attorney General, with her on the brief), Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, appearing for Appellee.
Before BRISCOE, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Ronson Bush is an Oklahoma state prisoner who pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. After exhausting his state court remedies by way of a direct appeal and an application for state post-conviction relief, Bush filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied Bush’s petition, and also denied him a certificate of appealability (COA). Bush appealed and we subsequently granted him a COA with respect to five issues.
In the first of those issues, Bush asserts that the state trial court violated his due process rights by allowing the prosecution to make an offer of proof from a jailhouse informant regarding incriminating statements allegedly made by Bush. We conclude, however, that Bush has failed to identify any clearly established federal law applicable to this claim, and thus he is not entitled to federal habeas relief under the standards of review outlined in § 2254(d).
In his second issue, Bush argues that the admission of improper victim impact testimony, including requests by the victim’s family members for the death penalty, violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We agree with Bush that the admission of this testimony amounted to constitutional error, but we conclude, after considering all of the evidence that was presented at his sentencing hearing, that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the sentence that was imposed by the state trial court.
In his third issue, Bush argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the unconstitutional victim impact testimony. Having concluded that Bush was not prejudiced by the admission of this testimony, we in turn conclude that Bush was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to object to the testimony.
In his fourth issue, Bush argues that his direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of an Oklahoma statute that bars capital defendants who plead guilty from being sentenced by a jury. The state appellate court rejected this issue on the merits, and we conclude that its decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
In his final issue, Bush argues that he is entitled to federal habeas relief on the basis of cumulative error. We conclude, however, that Bush has failed to establish actual prejudice resulting from the constitutional errors he has identified.
Therefore, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief.
The underlying facts of Bush’s crime
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) summarized the relevant underlying facts of Bush’s case in addressing his direct appeal:
Bush v. State, 280 P.3d 337, 342–43 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) ( Bush I ) ( ).
Bush’s state trial proceedings
The OCCA in Bush I also summarized Bush’s ensuing state trial proceedings:
Id. at 341–42 ( ).
Bush’s direct appeal
Bush filed a direct appeal, asserting ten propositions of error. On June 19, 2012, the OCCA issued a published opinion affirming Bush’s convictions and sentences for first degree murder and possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony.
Bush filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. That was denied on March 4, 2013. Bush v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meek v. Martin
...P.3d 959, 970 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) )."[T]he Supreme Court has never recognized the concept of cumulative error" Bush v. Carpenter , 926 F.3d 644, 686 n.16 (10th Cir. 2019). Nonetheless, "[c]umulative-error analysis applies where there are two or more actual errors. It does not apply, how......
-
Harris v. Sharp
...the constitutional violation may be harmless. In Bush v. Carpenter , for example, "sentence recommendations were lengthy [and] egregious." 926 F.3d 644, 668 (10th Cir. 2019) ; see also id. at 680 ("[T]he victim impact statements were numerous, emotional, and in at least one instance, egregi......
-
Harmon v. Sharp
...sure, we have on occasion—but infrequently—invoked the forfeiture/plain-error rubric in the AEDPA context, notably in Bush v. Carpenter , 926 F.3d 644, 657 n.4 (10th Cir. 2019), Hancock v. Trammell , 798 F.3d 1002, 1011 (10th Cir. 2015), and Hanson v. Sherrod , 797 F.3d 810, 843 (10th Cir. ......
-
Bingley v. Whitten
...No. F-2013-203, slip op at 13-14. "[T]he Supreme Court has never recognized the concept of cumulative error" Bush v. Carpenter, 926 F.3d 644, 686 n.16 (10th Cir. 2019). Nonetheless, "[c]umulative-error analysis applies where there are two or more actual errors. It does not apply, however, t......
-
Sentencing
...that victim was family member responsible for teaching Navajo culture to children because relevant to impact of crime); Bush v. Carpenter, 926 F.3d 644, 663-81 (10th Cir 2019) (due process not violated by “impassioned pleas” by victim’s family for death penalty because circumstances of murd......
-
Review Proceedings
...satisfied because defendant did not raise federal due process challenge in state post-conviction relief proceedings); Bush v. Carpenter, 926 F.3d 644, 656 (10th Cir. 2019) (exhaustion requirement not satisfied because petitioner made new arguments concerning state trial court’s alleged er......