Newton v. Paolino ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 10 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LESTER L. NEWTON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 00-1301
(D.C. No. 00-D-255)
JOSEPH PAOLINO, Warden of (D. Colo.)
Centennial Correction Facility;
KENNETH SALAZAR, Attorney
General of the State of Colorado,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Lester L. Newton, a Colorado state prisoner convicted by a jury
of various counts of burglary, kidnaping of a sexual assault victim, aggravated
robbery, and assault, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the
district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (no appeal unless
COA issued). We deny issuance of a COA and dismiss the appeal.
The following is a summary of the underlying facts as stated in the decision
of the Colorado Court of Appeals disposing of Newton’s direct appeal:
[Newton] and three other armed men forced entry into the
home occupied by the man and woman victims. Over the next
several hours, they bound, beat, and terrorized the victims, while
ransacking the house in search of money they believed to be present.
The woman victim was taken to another bedroom where one of the
men groped her genitalia and sodomized her with the barrel of his
gun. . . . The robbers left after taking cash, jewelry and other items.
Appellant’s App. vol. A, at 112.
On appeal, petitioner argues he is entitled to habeas relief on the following
grounds: (1) during jury selection, the prosecution excused a prospective juror on
the basis of race, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986); (2) the
prosecution willfully withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, in violation
of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (3) the trial court improperly allowed a
police detective to testify that Newton was guilty and the victims were credible;
-2-
and (4) the trial court’s overt hostility to Newton and his attorney deprived him of
a fair trial.
This case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA). Before a COA will issue, petitioner must make “a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do so, he
must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter
agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the
issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted).
The district court held that petitioner had not exhausted his claims relating
to the police detective’s testimony and the trial court’s hostility because he had
not provided the state courts with a fair opportunity to apply controlling federal
legal principles. As the district court correctly stated, these claims are
procedurally barred unless petitioner shows cause and prejudice or a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). In his
reply brief, for the first time petitioner made an argument that he had exhausted
these claims. We do not consider claims presented for the first time on appeal,
Walker v. Mather (In re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992), and we
generally do not consider claims presented for the first time in a reply brief,
-3-
Codner v. United States , 17 F.3d 1331, 1332 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly,
we decline to consider petitioner’s exhaustion arguments.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the appendix. For substantially
the same reasons underlying the district court’s June 29, 2000 order of dismissal,
we conclude that petitioner “has failed to raise issues that are debatable among
jurists, or that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions
deserve further proceedings.” United States v. Sistrunk , 111 F.3d 91, 91 (10th
Cir. 1997).
The application for issuance of a COA is denied. Appeal DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-4-