CA10: While some might disagree with OCCA’s opinion on abandonment, it’s not “unreasonable” under AEDPA

This is a § 2254 habeas challenging via an IAC claim whether defense counsel properly litigated his motion to suppress over whether his backpack was abandoned. That was also resolved in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. While people might disagree, it can’t be said that that court’s decision was unreasonable under AEDPA. Therefore, no certificate of appealability will issue. Miller v. Bear, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21664 (10th Cir. July 22, 2019):

Even if there is room to debate the OCCA’s analysis of whether Mr. Miller did enough to abandon the backpack or whether the backpack was close enough to him to be searched incident to arrest, we have explained that, under AEDPA, the state court’s “application of Supreme Court law may be incorrect without being unreasonable.” Lockett v. Trammell, 711 F.3d 1218, 1231 (10th Cir. 2013);see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 410 (2000). Indeed, to qualify for relief, Mr. Miller must convince the district court that “there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with [the Supreme] Court’s precedents.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011). The district court properly determined that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply the Supreme Court’s abandonment precedent to the circumstances of this case.

The district court held that the OCCA was not unreasonable under AEDPA. Reasonable jurists may be able to debate the OCCA’s determination, but not the district court’s. …