Hernandez v. Beck

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 31, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ARMANDO HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 05-6014
v. (Western District of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 04-CV-1022-W)
STEVE BECK, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Proceeding pro se, Armando Hernandez seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s denial of the habeas petition he filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no
appeal may be taken from a final order disposing of a § 2254 petition unless the
petitioner first obtains a COA). Hernandez’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
is granted.
Hernandez pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery with a firearm and one
count of assault with a deadly weapon. He did not seek to withdraw his guilty
plea or otherwise challenge his conviction on direct appeal. He did, however, file
an application for post-conviction relief in Oklahoma state court. The state
district court denied Hernandez’s post-conviction application, relying on
Oklahoma’s procedural default rule. See Okla Stat. tit. 22, § 1086; Neill v. State,
943 P.2d 145, 146 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). The denial of post-conviction relief
was affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
On June 17, 2002, Hernandez filed the instant § 2254 petition in federal
district court. In his federal petition, Hernandez raised the same eight claims he
attempted to raise in his state post-conviction application: (1) he was not advised
of his right to contact the Mexican Consul, (2) the trial court failed to advise him
of its intent to impose more than the minimum sentence on each count, (3) his
confession is invalid as a result of police entrapment, (4) he was subjected to
double jeopardy, (5) his video arraignment was unconstitutional, (6) the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections failed to use the Truth in Sentencing laws,
(7) his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily, and (8) his counsel
provided ineffective assistance. The district court concluded that the procedural
bar rule applied by the Oklahoma courts to the first seven issues raised by
Hernandez was an independent and adequate state procedural ground and that
Hernandez had failed to show cause and prejudice to excuse the default and had
also failed to demonstrate that the failure to review the merits of the defaulted
claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Bousley v.
-2-
United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998). The district court then concluded that
federal review of Hernandez’s ineffective assistance claims was not barred by the
procedural default. See English v. Cody, 146 F.3d 1257, 1263-64 (10th Cir.
1998). Although it reviewed the claims, it determined that they lacked merit. 1
This court cannot grant Hernandez a COA unless he can demonstrate “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). In evaluating whether
Hernandez has carried his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though
not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his
claims. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003). Hernandez is not
required to demonstrate that his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA. He
must, however, “prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the
existence of mere good faith.” Id. (quotations omitted).
This court has reviewed Hernandez’s application for a COA and appellate
brief, the district court’s order, and the entire record on appeal pursuant to the
framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El and concludes that
1
The district court also concluded that ineffective assistance of counsel did
not constitute cause for the procedural default of Hernandez’s first seven claims.
-3-
Hernandez is not entitled to a COA. The district court’s resolution of
Hernandez’s claims is not reasonably subject to debate and the claims are not
adequate to deserve further proceedings. Accordingly, Hernandez has not “made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” and is not entitled to
a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This court denies Hernandez’s request for a COA and dismisses this
appeal.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk of Court
By
Deputy Clerk
-4-