Montoya v. LeMaster ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 10 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
GARY MONTOYA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 99-2071
(D.C. No. CIV-97-526-JP/JHG)
TIM LEMASTER, Warden; (D. N.M.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , KELLY , 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.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
On March 11, 1994, petitioner Gary Montoya was convicted by the State of
New Mexico of two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor. The
conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner filed his petition for habeas
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 27, 1997, which was denied. Petitioner
appeals. The district court denied petitioner a certificate of appealability.
We construe petitioner’s notice of appeal as a renewed application for a
certificate of appealability. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
Petitioner argues that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of due
process. He asserts that the prosecutor: (1) improperly disclosed his prior child
sexual abuse offense during cross-examination of his wife; (2) improperly
attempted to portray him through cross-examination of his wife and in closing
argument as a depraved pedophile; (3) improperly questioned witnesses
concerning the credibility of other witnesses; and (4) made improper comments
in closing argument.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny
habeas relief. The district court emphasized “that the prosecuting attorney’s
questions and statements did not clearly or explicitly disclose Petitioner’s prior
offense or portray him as a ‘depraved’ pedophile.” R. doc. 23.
We have carefully reviewed the parties’ materials. We are unpersuaded by
petitioner’s assertions of error, and deny his application for a certificate of
-2-
appealability for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the magistrate
judge’s August 28, 1998 recommendation and adopted by the district court in its
December 29, 1998 order.
Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability is denied, and the
appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-