Nestell v. Klinger ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 27 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CHARLES NESTELL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 98-6148
(W. District of Oklahoma)
KEN KLINGER; ATTORNEY (D.C. No. 98-CV-263)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The court therefore
orders the case 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
This case is before the court on Charles Nestell’s application for a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that denial
of § 2254 petition is not appealable unless petitioner first obtains certificate of
appealability). Because Nestell has failed to make “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right,” he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
Id. § 2253(c)(2).
Nestell was sentenced to ten years in the custody of the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections pursuant to his pleas of guilty to one count of assault
and battery with a deadly weapon and two counts of assault and battery on a
police officer. Nestell pleaded guilty to and was sentenced on the assault counts
in 1996. In 1997, the Governor of Oklahoma signed into law the Oklahoma
Truth in Sentencing Act (the “Act”). See 1997 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 133.
Among other particulars, the Act established a sentencing matrix that apparently
would have provided a lighter sentence than Nestell received under pre-Act law.
Nestell then filed a petition for collateral relief in Oklahoma. As grounds for the
petition, Nestell asserted that the Act applied retroactively and that he was
entitled to be resentenced under the Act’s sentencing matrix. He further asserted
that failure to apply the Act retroactively would violate the Equal Protection
Clause of the United States Constitution. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals denied Nestell relief, concluding that the sentencing matrix portion of
-2-
the Act did not apply retroactively and that the Equal Protection Clause did not
require Oklahoma to retroactively reduce the sentences of convicts each time it
revised its sentencing scheme to lessen culpability for a given crime. Nestell v.
State , 954 P.2d 143, 144-45 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998)
The heart of Nestell’s § 2254 petition is that the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals incorrectly decided, as a matter of Oklahoma law, that the
sentencing matrix provisions of the Act do not apply retroactively. As aptly
noted by the district court, however, these claims raise issues of state law which
are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. See King v. Champion , 55 F.3d
522, 527 (10 th
Cir. 1995); Cotner v. Hargett , 1998 WL 4334 at *3 (10 th
Cir.
Jan.8, 1998) (unpublished disposition) (implying that sentencing claims under the
Act raise only questions of state law). Furthermore, the district court noted
Nestell’s equal protection claim failed because he was not similarly situated to
those who committed their crimes after the effective date of the Act. See Castillo
v. State , 954 P.2d 145, 147 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) (rejecting exact equal
protection claim advanced by Nestell); see also United States v. Haines , 855 F.2d
199, 200 (5 th
Cir. 1988) (“[T]here is absolutely no constitutional authority for the
proposition that the perpetrator of a crime can claim the benefit of a later enacted
statute which lessens the culpability level of that crime after it was committed.”).
Finally, the district court noted that Nestell’s ex post facto argument failed
-3-
because the Act did not impose a punishment on Nestell greater than the statute
in effect at the time his crimes were committed.
This court has reviewed Nestell’s application for a certificate of
appealability and opening brief, the district court’s Order, and the entire record
on appeal. That review makes clear that the district court’s resolution of the
issues raised by Nestell is not deserving of further proceedings, debatable among
jurists of reason, or subject to a different resolution on appeal. See Barefoot v.
Estelle , 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983). Because Nestell has not demonstrated
his entitlement to a certificate of appealability, this appeal is hereby
DISMISSED . 1
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
Nestell has filed a Motion to Present Newly Discovered Evidence with this
1
court. The motion references a news capsule which, according to Nestell,
demonstrates that at least one Oklahoma district court applied the Act
retroactively in one case. Even assuming that the news capsule is accurate,
Nestell has not identified any authority for the proposition that a single erroneous
retroactive application of the Act in clear violation of the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals’ decision in Nestell entitles him to similar treatment.
Accordingly, Nestell’s motion is DENIED.
-4-