“Reaffirming Oklahoma Rule 5.2(C) as an Independent and Adequate State Procedural Bar”
Commentary on David v. Yazel, 70 F.4th ___ (10th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

David v. Yazel is a 2025 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that denied Jerome Adrian David’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Although labelled an “order,” the ruling carries persuasive weight because it reiterates and clarifies two inter-related doctrines central to federal habeas jurisprudence:

• The “independent and adequate state procedural bar” doctrine, and
• The heightened showing required to surmount that bar—namely, the “cause and prejudice” or “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exceptions.

The petitioner, Mr. David, sought federal review of alleged Fourth and Sixth Amendment violations stemming from an Oklahoma conviction for second-degree burglary, felon-in-possession, and concealing stolen property. The pivotal events were his repeated failures to comply with Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) Rule 5.2(C)’s strict deadlines, leading the state courts to dismiss his post-conviction appeals as untimely. Those dismissals triggered a procedural default that the federal district court, and ultimately the Tenth Circuit, deemed fatal to Mr. David’s federal habeas effort.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The Tenth Circuit denied Mr. David’s request for a COA, concluding that no reasonable jurist could debate either (a) the correctness of the district court’s procedural ruling or (b) the merits of his constitutional claims.
2. The panel reaffirmed that OCCA Rule 5.2(C) is an independent and adequate state ground for dismissal, thereby barring federal habeas review unless the petitioner shows cause and prejudice or actual innocence.
3. The court found Mr. David could not rely on ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) as “cause” because he had never properly exhausted a standalone IAC claim in the state courts.
4. Because Mr. David likewise failed to argue “actual innocence,” the court ruled the procedural default unexcused, rendering his Fourth and Sixth Amendment claims non-reviewable.
5. The court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the appeal.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991)

• Articulated the independent-and-adequate state ground doctrine.
• Held that federal courts cannot review a defaulted claim unless the petitioner shows cause and prejudice or actual innocence.

Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009)

• Reiterated that state procedural defaults typically preclude federal review.

Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986)

• Recognized that attorney error amounting to IAC can satisfy “cause,” but only if that IAC claim is itself not procedurally defaulted.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)

• Defined the COA standard: whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution of constitutional or procedural issues.

Johnson v. Champion, 288 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2002) and Duvall v. Reynolds, 139 F.3d 768 (10th Cir. 1998)

• Earlier Tenth Circuit cases explicitly designating OCCA Rule 5.2(C) as an adequate procedural bar.

Collectively, these precedents form a well-settled doctrinal lattice that the panel simply re-applied, but in doing so it fortifies their continuing vitality, particularly as to Oklahoma’s Rule 5.2(C).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Identification of default. The court first asked: Did the last state court rendering judgment (OCCA) rely on a procedural rule to dismiss the claim? Answer: Yes—untimeliness under Rule 5.2(C).
2. Independence. Rule 5.2(C) is not intertwined with federal law; therefore, it is “independent.”
3. Adequacy. The rule is “adequate” because the OCCA regularly and consistently enforces it; prior Tenth Circuit cases confirmed this.
4. Cause and prejudice / miscarriage of justice inquiry. The only colorable “cause” was IAC, but Mr. David never properly raised IAC as an independent claim in state court; thus it, too, was defaulted. Accordingly, cause was lacking, prejudice need not be reached, and no fundamental miscarriage of justice was alleged.
5. COA standard. Applying Slack, the panel concluded no reasonable jurist would debate the district court’s procedural ruling; ergo, no COA.

3.3 Impact

While not “published precedent,” the order carries persuasive authority under 10th Cir. R. 32.1 and is citable. Its significance lies in:

• Re-affirmation of certainty. Litigants within the Tenth Circuit face near-absolute certainty that untimely filings under OCCA Rule 5.2(C) will doom parallel federal habeas claims.
• Practical guidance for defense counsel. Appellate and post-conviction lawyers in Oklahoma must vigilantly observe Rule 5.2(C) deadlines or risk irrevocable loss of federal review.
• Narrowing “cause.” The court’s strict reading of Murray underscores that IAC cannot serve as cause if it, too, is unexhausted, thereby foreclosing a frequent workaround.
• Streamlined COA denials. The opinion exemplifies an efficient template for disposing of procedurally barred habeas claims without reaching the merits, contributing to docket management norms.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Certificate of Appealability (COA): A permission slip granted by a federal appellate court allowing a state prisoner to appeal the denial of a habeas petition. The prisoner must show that jurists could reasonably debate the district court’s decision.
• Procedural Default: When a petitioner fails to follow a state’s procedural rules (e.g., filing deadlines), any corresponding federal claim is generally barred.
• Independent and Adequate State Ground: A state-law rule that (1) is separate from federal law and (2) consistently applied. If a state court dismisses on such a ground, federal courts will not review the underlying federal claim.
• Cause and Prejudice: An exception allowing federal review despite default if the petitioner shows (a) a legitimate reason (“cause”) for the default and (b) actual harm (“prejudice”) resulting from the alleged constitutional violation.
• Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice / Actual Innocence: A separate safety valve that allows federal review if failure to do so would result in the conviction of someone who is factually innocent.
• Exhaustion Requirement: Before a federal court may consider a habeas claim, the petitioner must present the claim fully through the state appellate process.

5. Conclusion

David v. Yazel may appear routine—another COA denial—but its doctrinal reverberations are noteworthy. The Tenth Circuit solidified that:

OCCA Rule 5.2(C) continues to constitute an independent and adequate procedural bar, rendering untimely state post-conviction appeals virtually unreviewable in federal habeas proceedings.

Furthermore, the decision underscores that ineffective assistance claims deployed as “cause” must themselves be exhausted; otherwise, they are useless for piercing procedural default. For practitioners, the take-home message is clear: preserve all federal claims diligently in state court and observe every procedural deadline, or risk permanent foreclosure. In the broader legal landscape, the ruling operates as a warning beacon—highlighting how procedural missteps, even seemingly minor timing errors, can extinguish substantive constitutional claims before they are ever heard on the merits.