Montgomery v. Cotton

── Montgomery v. Cotton ── Case No.: 25-5090 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 26, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-5090 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 26, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JAMES EDWARD MONTGOMERY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 25-5090 (D.C. No. 4:17-CV-00445-CVE-JFJ) JAMES COTTON, Interim Warden, (N.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ James Edward Montgomery, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. I. BACKGROUND In a bifurcated trial, an Oklahoma state jury first convicted Montgomery of maiming, resisting an officer, and public intoxication. During the second stage of trial, * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Because Montgomery represents himself, we construe his filings liberally, but 1 we do not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).  Appellate Case: 25-5090 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 2 the jury found that Montgomery had two prior felony convictions and recommended the following sentences: a sixty-year prison term for maiming, a one-year prison term for resisting an officer, and a thirty-day jail term for public intoxication. The trial court sentenced Montgomery according to the jury’s recommendations. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his convictions and sentences. He then filed a § 2254 habeas application in federal court, claiming insufficient evidence, a due process violation, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper response to a jury question by the trial court. The district court denied habeas relief. Montgomery now seeks a COA to appeal the district court’s rejection of his habeas application. II. DISCUSSION Before he can appeal, Montgomery must obtain a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). To do so, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). Because the district court denied his claims on the merits, Montgomery “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), when a state court has adjudicated the merits of a claim, a federal district court may grant habeas relief on that claim only if the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the S