William Leon Bauders v. Scott Crow

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
WILLIAM LEON BAUDERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SCOTT CROW,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 20-5101
(D.C. No. 4:17-CV-00209-CVE-FHM)
(N.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, Circuit Judge, LUCERO, Senior Circuit Judge, and
MORITZ, Circuit Judge.
_________________________________
Mr. William Leon Bauders seeks habeas relief based on an Oklahoma
conviction for second-degree felony murder, possession of a stolen vehicle,
grand larceny, leaving the scene of a fatal collision, and driving with a
suspended license. The federal district court denied habeas relief, and Mr.
Bauders wants to appeal. To do so, he needs a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We decline to issue the certificate.
For a certificate of appealability, Mr. Bauders must make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). This standard requires a showing that “reasonable jurists
could debate . . . whether the petition should have been resolved in a
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 23, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-5101 Document: 010110483674 Date Filed: 02/23/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
different manner.” Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir.
2007). In our view, no jurist could reasonably question the voluntariness of
Mr. Bauders’s statements.
Mr. Bauders confessed guilt before the trial but argued that the
confession was involuntary. The trial court rejected this argument after
conducting an evidentiary hearing. In seeking habeas relief, Mr. Bauders
argues that the trial court’s finding was unreasonable based on the
evidence. He does not suggest coercion; he instead points to an officer’s
admission that he used a psychological tactic of friendliness.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected this argument in
the direct appeal:
A voluntary confession is one which “is the product of an
essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.” . . . .
The State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a
confession is voluntary, and the district court determines the
issue by considering the totality of the circumstances. On appeal,
we determine whether competent evidence supports the district
court’s finding that the statement was voluntary. As long as there
are not threats or promises made, police may urge suspects to
cooperate and to tell the truth. Even aggressive police
questioning does not constitute coercion, where the record
indicates a defendant answers questions voluntarily. The record
here does not support Bauders’ claim that officers promised to
have his charges dropped, or promised him anything else, in
return for a confession; there is no merit to his claim that the
officer’s friendly attitude amounted to psychological coercion.
Dkt. # 8-3, OCCA Op. at 2-3. In our view, no jurist could reasonably
question this analysis. We thus decline to issue a certificate of
Appellate Case: 20-5101 Document: 010110483674 Date Filed: 02/23/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
appealability. And in the absence of a certificate, we dismiss this matter.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-5101 Document: 010110483674 Date Filed: 02/23/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --