Tanguma v. Golder , 177 F. App'x 829 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 2, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
REYNALDO TANGUMA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
No. 05-1339
(D.C. No. 05-CV-00515-ZLW)
GARY GOLDER; and THE
(D. Colo.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, MCKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Reynaldo Tanguma, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, requests a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the
district court, we DENY a COA and DISMISS.
Tanguma was convicted by a jury of sexual assault on a child while in a
position of trust for forcing his eleven-year-old half-sister to engage in sexual
acts with him and his wife. After the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected his
appeal, Tanguma filed for a writ of certiorari from the Colorado Supreme Court,
arguing that his conviction should be reversed because of erroneously admitted
testimony. His petition was denied.
Tanguma followed the denial of his writ of certiorari with a motion for
post-conviction relief in state court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
This motion was denied and was not appealed. A second motion for post-
conviction relief followed, alleging that he was entitled to a new trial on the basis
of newly discovered evidence and that he had received ineffective assistance of
counsel. This motion was denied and the appeal was rejected by the court of
appeals.
Instead of seeking review from the Colorado Supreme Court, Tanguma
filed a habeas petition under § 2254. He claimed that his right to a fair trial was
denied, that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that a trial court
ruling impinged upon his right against self-incrimination. A magistrate judge
ordered Tanguma to show cause that he had exhausted his state remedies.
Following Tanguma’s response, the magistrate judge determined that, although
Tanguma may have exhausted state remedies for some of his claims, he did not do
so for all claims. The district court then dismissed Tanguma’s petition without
prejudice on the ground that it was a mixed petition containing exhausted and
-2-
unexhausted claims. Failing to secure a COA from that court, Tanguma now
seeks a COA from this court. 1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), habeas corpus may not be granted unless the
applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the state courts. “The
exhaustion requirement is satisfied if the federal issue has been properly
presented to the highest state court, either by direct review of the conviction or in
a postconviction attack.” Dever v. Kansas State Penitentiary, 36 F.3d 1531, 1534
(10th Cir. 1994). Tanguma acknowledged that he did not raise all of his claims in
front of the Colorado Supreme Court. Tanguma therefore did not exhaust these
claims. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (federal courts may
not grant habeas corpus unless the prisoner has “given the state courts one full
1
Tanguma’s petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”); as a result,
AEDPA’s provisions apply to this case. See Rogers v. Gibson, 173 F.3d 1278,
1282 n.1 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997)).
AEDPA conditions a petitioner’s right to appeal a denial of habeas relief under
§ 2254 upon a grant of a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may be
issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). This requires Tanguma to show “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). Because the district
court denied Tanguma a COA, he may not appeal the district court’s decision
absent a grant of COA by this court.
-3-
opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round
of the State’s established appellate review process”).
Tanguma, however, also presented claims in his habeas petition for which
he had exhausted the remedies available in the state courts. A district court faced
with a mixed petition “may dismiss the petition and allow the petitioner to return
to state court to exhaust his claims [or] . . . . it may deny the petition on the
merits, notwithstanding the petitioner's failure to exhaust his state court
remedies.” Moore v. Schoeman, 288 F.3d 1231. 1232 (10th Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted). The district court’s decision to dismiss Tanguma’s petition without
prejudice was proper.
For the reasons set forth above, Tanguma’s request for a COA is DENIED
and the appeal is DISMISSED. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-