Mayberry v. State of Oklahoma , 155 F. App'x 401 ( 2005 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
November 16, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
RICHARD LIONEL MAYBERRY,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-6053
v. (W.D. of Okla.)
RON WARD, (D.C. No. CV-04-1687-F)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before KELLY , O’BRIEN , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. **
Petitioner-Appellant Richard L. Mayberry, a state prisoner appearing pro
se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court for the Western
District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court held the
petition to be untimely under 29 U.S.C. § 2244(d), denied a certificate of
appealability (COA), and dismissed. Because Mayberry has not made a
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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; nevertheless, an order may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2),
we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
I. Background
The parties are familiar with the facts of this case and we need not restate
them here. After pleading guilty to robbery with a firearm, assault and battery
with a dangerous weapon, and possession of a firearm, Mayberry was sentenced
on March 14, 1994, to 50 years imprisonment. He filed an application for post-
conviction relief, but it was denied by a state district court on October 12, 1994.
Mayberry did not appeal. On September 3, 2003, he filed a second petition for
post-conviction relief, which was denied by a state district court on November 13,
2003. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals declined jurisdiction due to
Mayberry’s failure to file a timely appeal. Mayberry filed his third petition for
post-conviction relief on May 3, 2004, and it was again denied by a state district
court. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial on August
31, 2004.
Mayberry filed his petition in federal district court on December 13, 2004.
He claimed that the state violated his due process rights by denying his
applications for post-conviction relief without a hearing, that his pleas were not
knowingly made, and that his trial counsel was ineffective, resulting in his guilty
pleas and his untimely motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
-2-
II. Legal Issues
We may grant a COA if Mayberry “has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see also United
States v. Springfield , 337 F.3d 1175, 1177 (10th Cir. 2003). In cases where the
district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue if the habeas petitioner
shows (1) reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of the constitutional right, and (2) reasonable jurists
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Absent a showing of statutory or equitable tolling, state prisoners have a
one-year period within which to file a habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(A) . In cases such as this one, where Mayberry’s conviction became
final prior to the enactment of AEDPA, the one-year limitations period runs from
the Act’s effective date, which was April 24, 1996. Hoggro v. Boone , 150 F.3d
1223, 1225-1226 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). Thus, absent
statutory or equitable tolling, Mayberry had one year from that date to file his
petition in federal district court. The limitations period can be tolled for a
“properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review.”
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
-3-
Mayberry did not file his federal petition until 2004, many years after the
limitations period ended in 1997. Furthermore, he is not entitled to statutory or
equitable tolling. Regarding statutory tolling, Mayberry’s first application for
post-conviction relief did not toll the limitations period, because it was filed
before the enactment of AEDPA, i.e., before the one-year period began in 1996.
Likewise, Mayberry’s second and third applications for relief were not tolling
events because they were not filed in state court until after the one-year clock had
expired in 1997. See May v. Workman , 339 F.3d 1236, 1237 (10th Cir. 2003).
Finally, we agree with the magistrate judge that Mayberry has shown no cause for
equitable tolling, which is limited to “rare and exceptional circumstances.”
Gibson v. Klinger , 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000). Mayberry has alleged no
facts that would allow us to find “circumstances where the limitation period at
least raises serious constitutional questions and possibly renders the habeas
remedy inadequate and ineffective.” Miller v. Marr , 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir.
1998). As the magistrate judge pointed out, Mayberry was not diligent in
pursuing his federal claims, and “this Circuit has generally declined to apply
equitable tolling when it is facially clear from the timing of the state and federal
petitions that the petitioner did not diligently pursue his federal claims.” Burger
v. Scott , 317 F.3d 1133, 1141 (10th Cir. 2003).
-4-
Accordingly, we DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-5-