Dickens v. Franklin

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 20, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER M. DICKENS,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 09-5049
v. Northern District of Oklahoma
ERIC FRANKLIN, Warden, (D.C. No. 4:06-CV-00065-CVE-FHM)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before LUCERO, MURPHY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Christopher M. Dickens, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) that would allow him to appeal from the district
court’s order denying his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because we conclude that Mr. Dickens has failed to
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” we deny his
request for a COA, and dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Background
Mr. Dickens was convicted of robbery with a firearm (Count I) and first
degree (felony) murder (Count II), when police shot and killed his partner in
crime during the commission of an armed robbery at a McDonalds. At
sentencing, the trial court dismissed Count I and sentenced Mr. Dickens to life
imprisonment on Count II. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”)
affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. Dickens v. State, 106 P.3d 599, 601
(Okla. Crim. App. 2005).
Mr. Dickens filed a petition for federal habeas relief in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. [Dist. Ct. Op. 3] The
district court denied his petition. [Dist. Ct. Op. 14] The district court then denied
COA, but vacated the denial and granted him additional time to file an application
for COA. Apparently, Mr. Dickens did submit an application for COA; because it
was captioned as a Tenth Circuit filing, however, the application was forwarded
to this court. Because the district court vacated its denial of COA but never
issued a subsequent ruling, Mr. Dickens’ COA application in the district court is
deemed denied. See 10th Cir. R. 22.1(C) (“Failure of the district court to issue a
certificate of appealability within thirty days of filing the notice of appeal shall be
deemed a denial.”). We now consider the merits of his COA application.
Mr. Dickens raises the following six claims in his application, all of which
were raised on direct appeal and in his federal habeas petition: (1) insufficient
-2-
evidence exists to support his conviction; (2) he should not be imprisoned for a
lawful killing that has been classified as a “justifiable homicide”; (3) by holding
him strictly liable, Oklahoma’s felony murder statute violates the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments; (4) the court issued a defective felony murder jury
instruction; (5) the court improperly denied his proposed jury instruction on
intervening cause; and (6) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. Aplt. 2–3.
Discussion
The denial of a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may be appealed
only if the district court or this Court first issues a COA. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order
to make such a showing, a petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether . . . 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) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Although Mr. Dickens need not demonstrate that his
appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than
the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted).
Having undertaken a review of Mr. Dickens’s application for a COA and
appellate filings, the district court’s order, and the entire record on appeal
-3-
pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El, this court
concludes he is not entitled to a COA. The district court’s resolution of the issues
raised in Mr. Dickens’s § 2254 motion is not reasonably subject to debate and,
therefore, his claims do not merit further proceedings.
Conclusion
Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Dickens’s request for a COA and DISMISS
this appeal.
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-4-