Underwood v. Royal
Decision Date | 02 July 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-6262,16-6262 |
Citation | 894 F.3d 1154 |
Parties | Kevin Ray UNDERWOOD, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Terry ROYAL, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Sarah M. Jernigan, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Patti Palmer Ghezzi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Western District of Oklahoma, with her on the briefs), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jennifer J. Dickson, Assistant Attorney General (Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma, with her on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before MATHESON, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Ray Underwood appeals from the federal district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 2008, a jury convicted Mr. Underwood of first degree murder and sentenced him to death in Oklahoma state court. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ("OCCA") affirmed Mr. Underwood’s conviction and sentence and later denied post-conviction relief.
Mr. Underwood sought federal habeas relief from his death sentence under § 2254. The federal district court denied Mr. Underwood’s requests for relief and for a certificate of appealability ("COA") on all eleven grounds raised in the § 2254 application. We granted COAs on six of the eleven grounds for relief.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief on all six grounds.
We begin with the relevant factual history as presented by the OCCA.1 We then provide an overview of the procedural history leading to this appeal. We present additional background below as relevant to our discussion of Mr. Underwood’s claims.
The OCCA, in addressing Mr. Underwood’s direct appeal, set forth the following relevant facts:
in the girl’s eyes, and curved marks on her face, consistent with [Mr. Underwood]’s description of how he had suffocated her. The most pronounced wound on the body was a very deep incision to [J.B.]’s neck, which was also consistent with the injuries [Mr. Underwood] admitted to inflicting. The Medical Examiner also noted trauma to the girl’s genital area, including tearing of the hymen. However, the Medical Examiner could not say that [J.B.] was alive, or even conscious, when her neck was cut or when she was sexually assaulted. The official cause of death was declared to be asphyxiation.
Underwood v. State , 252 P.3d 221, 230-31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (footnotes omitted).
The following proceedings preceded Mr. Underwood’s present appeal: (1) jury trial in Oklahoma state court, (2) direct appeal and application for state post-conviction relief in the OCCA, and (3) application for federal post-conviction relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under § 2254. We provide a brief overview of each proceeding.
1. Trial
In 2008, an Oklahoma jury convicted Mr. Underwood of first degree murder, under Section 701.7(A) of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and sentenced him to death.
In the guilt...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Starks
...may in some instances render a ... trial ‘so fundamentally unfair as to deny [a defendant] due process.’ " Underwood v. Royal , 894 F.3d 1154, 1167 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Littlejohn v. Trammell , 704 F.3d 817, 837 (10th Cir. 2013) ), cert. denied, Underwood v. Carpenter , ––– U.S. ––––, ......
-
Hawes v. Pacheco
...correct governing legal principle ... but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of petitioner's case." Underwood v. Royal , 894 F.3d 1154, 1162 (10th Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted); see also Bell , 535 U.S. at 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843. "[T]he ultimate focus of the inquiry is whether ......
-
Fuston v. State
...136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) does not convince us to reconsider our position. Rejecting this same argument in Underwood v. Royal , 894 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir.2018) the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Hurst "invalidated Florida's [death penalty] scheme specifically ‘to the ex......
-
United States v. Christy
...error framework.a. Prosecutorial misconductProsecutorial misconduct can cause constitutional error in two ways. Underwood v. Royal , 894 F.3d 1154, 1167 (10th Cir. 2018). First, it can prejudice a specific constitutional right amounting to a denial of the right. Id.5 Second, "absent infring......
-
Trials
...not ineffective assistance when no evidence it would have convinced jurors to vote against death sentence); Underwood v. Royal, 894 F.3d 1154, 1165 (10th Cir. 2018) (counsel’s failure to present expert rebuttal testimony regarding timing of victim’s death not ineffective assistance because ......
-
Sentencing
...post-mortem mutilation harmless error because 5 other aggravating factors found and state statute required only 1); Underwood v. Royal, 894 F.3d 1154, 1181 (10th Cir. 2018) (trial court’s admission of victim’s parents’ sentencing recommendations harmless error because statements were brief ......