Berrien v. Shanks ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 18 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHN A. BERRIEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 97-2285
(N.M.)
JOHN SHANKS, Warden; (D.Ct. No. CIV-95-1415-JC)
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
__________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
__________________________
Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
__________________________
After examining the brief 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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 John Berrien appeals from the district court's order dismissing
his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 In his petition,
Mr. Berrien challenged his conviction in New Mexico state court for possession
of cocaine claiming: (1) his conviction was based on evidence obtained through
an illegal search; (2) his conviction was based on evidence obtained by an
unlawful arrest; (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (4) he was
denied due process because his appellate attorney failed to raise the ineffective
assistance of counsel claim to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. The district
court adopted the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommended
disposition in its order. The magistrate judge held Mr. Berrien failed to meet his
burden of showing he was entitled to relief with respect to his first two claims.
As to Mr. Berrien’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the magistrate judge
ruled against Mr. Berrien, concluding he failed to show his counsel’s performance
was deficient and he failed to show prejudice. The magistrate judge also ruled
against Mr. Berrien on his due process claim, finding it without merit.
1
The district court denied Mr. Berrien a certificate of appealability in its order
dated September 2, 1997. Since Mr. Berrien's petition was filed prior to April, 24, 1996,
the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub L.
No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (see United States v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.2
(10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1375 (1998)), we construe the district court's
order as a denial of a certificate of probable cause rather than a certificate of
appealability.
-2-
Mr. Berrien appeals only the dismissal of his ineffective assistance of
counsel claim for his trial attorney's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence
of the cocaine. Mr. Berrien contends his trial attorney was ineffective because his
attorney’s decision not to file a motion to suppress was based on insufficient
investigation and unreasonable trial strategy. Furthermore, Mr. Berrien asserts he
was prejudiced by his attorney’s decision not to file the motion because it would
have been meritorious and resulted in his acquittal. Mr. Berrien also requests we
issue a certificate of probable cause as a prerequisite to our jurisdiction over his
appeal.
We have reviewed the evidentiary hearing transcripts on the petition, the
magistrate's report, the district court's order, the Petitioner's brief and application
for certificate of probable cause. For substantially the reasons stated in the well-
reasoned report by the magistrate judge dated May 22, 1997, and the district
court's order adopting this report, we conclude Mr. Berrien has failed to make a
“‘substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right’” by demonstrating the
issue is “‘debatable among jurists,’” or that another court could resolve the issue
differently, or that the question deserves further proceedings. Barefoot v. Estelle,
463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983) (quoting Stewart v. Beto, 454 F.2d 268, 270 n.2 (5th
Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 925 (1972)); see also Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d
-3-
431, 434 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 746 (1997), overruled on other
grounds by United States v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d 1363 (10th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, 118 S. Ct. 1375 (1998). Consequently, we DENY his application for a
certificate of probable cause, and DISMISS this appeal.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-4-