Vincent H. Small, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se, was convicted in 2020 of lewd molestation under Oklahoma law. The conviction was based on testimony from two minor victims who described Small exposing himself and rubbing his penis near them, as well as testimony regarding his flight and a text message sent to the house owner after the incident. After the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, Small filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. During the federal proceedings, Small raised new arguments that had not been exhausted in state court. The district court directed him to choose between dismissing the unexhausted claims or proceeding only on his original sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. Small chose to dismiss the unexhausted claims and proceed solely on the sufficiency argument. The district court denied his application, ruling that the state court's determination was not unreasonable, and denied a certificate of appealability, which Small now seeks to challenge in the Tenth Circuit.
To appeal the denial of a habeas application, a petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA), which requires a substantial showing that the denial of a constitutional right was debatable among reasonable jurists. The Tenth Circuit applied a deferential standard of review to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' decision. First, the court addressed Small's arguments regarding the unexhausted claims he had voluntarily dismissed at the district court level, concluding that no reasonable jurist could debate that those claims should have been resolved differently since Small chose to drop them. Second, the court analyzed the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. Under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Small argued that inconsistencies in the victims' testimony rendered the evidence insufficient. The court rejected this, citing Matthews v. Workman, explaining that while inconsistencies might lead a rational juror to disbelieve the testimony, they do not show that a rational juror could not accept it. Because the state court found the evidence sufficient, and the Tenth Circuit found no unreasonable application of federal law, the court concluded that no COA was warranted.
The appeal is dismissed, and Small's state conviction for lewd molestation stands. The decision reinforces the high bar for proving insufficient evidence in federal habeas cases, emphasizing that credibility determinations are reserved for the jury. While the appeal is dismissed, Small has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees, though the denial of the COA effectively ends his ability to pursue this specific federal appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download