Lee v. Klinger ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 23 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
EDDIE LEE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6286
KEN KLINGER, (D.C. No. CIV-98-68-M)
(W.D.Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, EBEL and BRISCOE, 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.
Eddie Lee appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254petition for habeas corpus relief. Lee seeks a certificate of appealability and
leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Lee has also filed a motion to stay
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
proceedings. We deny a certificate of appealability, deny Lee’s request to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, deny his motion to stay proceedings, and
dismiss the appeal.
I.
Lee was charged in 1986 with burglary in the first degree, two counts of
rape in the second degree, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, and robbery with
a firearm. Lee was a juvenile when the crimes were committed and the trial court
certified him to stand trial as an adult. Lee then pled guilty to all counts. Lee
appealed his adult classification to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
(OCCA), but the appeal was dismissed on Lee’s motion on April 20, 1987.
On May 7, 1997, Lee filed a petition for appeal out of time with the
OCCA. The court declined jurisdiction because Lee had not been denied post-
conviction relief by the district court. Lee filed an application for post-
conviction relief, alleging (1) the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel by basing its
findings on psychiatric evaluations and testimony, (2) the trial court erred in
certifying him as an adult, and (3) he was denied his right to appeal by the
dismissal of his direct appeal. On July 30, 1997, the state district court denied
post-conviction relief. On December 1, 1997, Lee filed a petition in error with
the OCCA, appealing that denial. The OCCA again declined jurisdiction because
2
Lee’s notice of appeal was untimely.
On January 15, 1998, Lee filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion in federal
district court, alleging (1) denial of Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth
Amendment privilege against self incrimination, (2) denial of due process at the
juvenile certification proceeding, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel in the
dismissal of his direct appeal. The magistrate recommended dismissing Lee’s
§ 2254 petition as untimely. The magistrate found that Lee’s conviction became
final on April 20, 1987, when the OCCA dismissed his direct appeal. Under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and this court’s
decision in United States v. Simmonds , 111 F.3d 737 (10th Cir. 1997), Lee had
until April 23, 1997, to file his § 2254 petition. Lee did not file his § 2254
petition until January 15, 1998. Lee objected to the magistrate’s report and
recommendation.
On January 26, 1999, the district court adopted the magistrate’s findings
and recommendations, dismissed Lee’s § 2254 petition, and denied Lee a
certificate of appealability. On April 9, 1999, Lee filed a motion requesting that
the district court review the entire record. On June 25, 1999, the district court
denied Lee’s motion for review, again finding his § 2254 petition was untimely.
On July 9, 1999, Lee filed a notice of appeal. On October 14, 1999, the district
court denied Lee’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Lee failed to
3
timely appeal the denial of his § 2254 petition, but did timely appeal the district
court’s denial of his motion to review the entire record. Our review is limited to
whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to review
the entire record. See White v. American Airlines, Inc. , 915 F.2d 1414, 1425
(10th Cir. 1990).
II.
On appeal, Lee does not address the timeliness of his § 2254 petition, but
raises the issues of due process violations in the certification proceeding and the
state district court’s review of that proceeding. We find the district court did not
err in concluding Lee’s § 2254 petition was not timely filed. Under the AEDPA,
“[a] 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas
corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Lee’s conviction became final on April 20, 1987, when the
OCCA dismissed his direct appeal. Because his conviction became final before
the effective date of the AEDPA, Lee had until April 23, 1997, to file his federal
habeas petition. Simmonds , 111 F.3d at 746. Lee filed his § 2254 petition with
the district court on January 15, 1998. This filing was untimely, and Lee has
failed to show he was excused from timely filing his petition. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1) (listing circumstances in which time for filing petition may be
extended).
4
Lee has filed a “Motion to Stay Proceedings to Allow Petitioner the
Opportunity to Exhaust Newly Discover[e]d State Procedures.” The motion is
not clear as to what state remedy Lee seeks to utilize. In light of the untimeliness
of Lee’s § 2254 petition, we deny the motion to stay proceedings.
III.
We DENY Lee a certificate of appealability, DENY his request to proceed
on appeal in forma pauperis, DENY his motion to stay the proceedings, and
DISMISS the appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
5