Morales v. Jones ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 17, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
VECENTIE SONTIAGO MORALES,
JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 09-6067
v. (Case No. 08-CV-00828-C)
(W.D. Okla.)
JUSTIN JONES, Director,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER *
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, a pro se state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to
appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition relating to his
conviction for uttering a forged instrument. After representing himself in a state
jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of uttering a forged instrument following a
prior felony conviction, and he was sentenced to twenty-seven years of
imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. In his § 2254
habeas petition, Petitioner raised the same issues he had raised on direct appeal in
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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.
Oklahoma state court; namely, (1) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence
of other bad acts, and (2) that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his
right to counsel at trial. The magistrate judge recommended that the habeas
petition be denied, and the district court agreed. Petitioner now seeks a certificate
of appealability to appeal this ruling.
On Petitioner’s first claim for habeas relief, the magistrate judge noted “a
state court’s misapplication of its own evidentiary rules” is generally insufficient
for federal habeas relief and that a petitioner seeking habeas relief for the
allegedly improper admission of evidence must show “the alleged error was ‘so
grossly prejudicial [that it] fatally infected the trial and denied the fundamental
fairness that is the essence of due process.’” Bullock v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036,
1055 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Revilla v. Gibson, 283 F.3d 1203, 1212 (10th Cir.
2002)) (alteration in original). After discussing the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals’ conclusion that the contested evidence was admissible to prove
Petitioner’s motive, intent, knowledge, and identity, the magistrate judge
concluded that the admission of this evidence did not render Petitioner’s trial
fundamentally unfair, particularly in light of the limiting instruction given to the
jury.
As for Petitioner’s second claim, the magistrate judge detailed the
numerous discussions in the record regarding Petitioner’s decision to represent
himself at trial. The magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner had not shown
-2-
any of the attorneys appointed to represent him were incompetent nor that an
actual conflict of interest existed, and he therefore rejected Petitioner’s argument
that he was forced to represent himself. Based on the evidence in the record, the
magistrate judge concluded Petitioner had not shown that the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals’ factual findings were incorrect nor that its decision was
contrary to or an unreasonable application of controlling Supreme Court
precedent. The district court agreed and adopted the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation in its entirety.
Having carefully reviewed the record on appeal, Petitioner’s brief, the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and the district court’s ruling, we
likewise agree with the magistrate judge’s conclusions, and we hold that
reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s
claims. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Therefore, for
substantially the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge and district court, we
DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the
appeal. We GRANT Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-