Scott William Wyban, a state prisoner in Colorado, was convicted in 2017 of sexual assault of a child by one in a position of trust, bribing a witness, and stalking. The charges stemmed from allegations that he sexually assaulted three of his step-grandchildren between 2002 and 2004. Following his conviction and a twelve-year to life sentence, Wyban filed a motion for postconviction relief under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c), claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. He argued counsel failed to effectively cross-examine the victims, failed to present exculpatory evidence regarding the victims' prior allegations of physical abuse, and failed to call alibi witnesses. The state postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing where trial counsel explained his strategic decisions, including avoiding graphic details and not introducing evidence that might invite further damaging testimony. The state court denied the motion, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Wyban then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court denied. Wyban now seeks a certificate of appealability to challenge that denial.
The Tenth Circuit analyzed Wyban's request for a certificate of appealability under the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which requires a 'substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.' To succeed, Wyban needed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved differently. The court applied the 'doubly deferential' standard required when a state court has already adjudicated an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits. This standard combines the high bar of the *Strickland* test, which presumes counsel's performance was within the 'wide range' of reasonable professional assistance, with the deference required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which prohibits federal habeas relief unless the state court's decision was 'contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.' The court addressed Wyban's specific arguments regarding counsel's performance. First, regarding the claim that counsel failed to impeach testimony about an upstairs bedroom, the court noted the testimony was limited to the youngest sister, whom the jury had acquitted, and that counsel's decision not to pursue the issue was reasonable given the sisters' history of moving between homes. Second, concerning the failure to aggressively cross-examine the oldest sister about inconsistent statements regarding oral sex, the court found counsel's strategy sound. Counsel testified that the victim was 'very meek' and that an aggressive approach would be 'self-defeating' and contrary to the defense theory that 'other people have abused this girl.' Third, the court rejected the argument that counsel should have introduced evidence of the sisters' prior allegations of physical abuse. Counsel explained that doing so would 'open[] the door' for the prosecution to introduce even more negative information and allegations for which Wyban was not charged. Finally, the court dismissed the claim regarding the failure to call alibi witnesses, noting that the proposed testimony would not necessarily refute the victims' accounts of abuse occurring when other adults were absent, asleep, or drunk. The court emphasized that 'the decision of which witnesses to call is quintessentially a matter of strategy for the trial attorney.' The court concluded that nothing in the record supported a finding that the state court unreasonably applied *Strickland*. Trial counsel had thoughtfully evaluated the risks and benefits of various tactics. Because there was no error in counsel's performance, the court also found no occasion to apply the cumulative-error doctrine. As the court stated, 'Reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's denial of Mr. Wyban's habeas petition.'
The denial of the certificate of appealability means the Tenth Circuit will not hear an appeal on the merits of Wyban's habeas claims. The district court's denial of the § 2254 petition stands, and Wyban remains incarcerated under his original sentence. The decision reinforces the high bar for federal habeas petitioners challenging state court ineffective assistance rulings, particularly where counsel's decisions are grounded in strategic considerations to avoid opening the door to more damaging evidence. No further relief is granted, and the matter is dismissed.