Nunez v. People of the State of Colorad

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 15, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JOE NUNEZ,
Petitioner–Appellant, No. 09-1254
v. (Case No. 08-CV-01732-CMA-CBS)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF (D. Colo.)
COLORADO; THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
COLORADO,
Respondents–Appellees.
ORDER *
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, a pro se state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to
appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. In exchange for
the dismissal of several related charges and two additional felony cases against
him, Appellant pled guilty in state court to possessing between 25 and 400 grams
of cocaine with intent to distribute, a class three felony. The potential sentencing
range for this count, as Appellant was informed several times in both the written
plea agreement and in the plea hearing, was four to sixteen years of
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
imprisonment, followed by a mandatory five-year period of parole. Appellant
was ultimately sentenced to the maximum sentence of sixteen years’
imprisonment plus five years of parole. He appealed to the Colorado Court of
Appeals, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
because the transcript of the plea hearing demonstrated that defense counsel was
confused about the applicable sentencing range. The Colorado appellate court
concluded that the written plea agreement signed by Appellant, the numerous oral
advisements by the trial court, together with Appellant’s repeated assurances that
he understood the possible penalty he faced as a result of his guilty plea and his
statement that his attorney had not made any promises to him, refuted his claim
that his plea was involuntary. Appellant’s petition for certiorari was denied by
the Colorado Supreme Court.
Appellant subsequently filed a § 2254 habeas petition in the federal district
court in which he argued that his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that he
was denied effective assistance of counsel in relation to the entry of the plea. The
district court concluded that the ineffective assistance claim had not been
exhausted and was now procedurally defaulted. As for the remaining claim, the
magistrate judge concluded that the state courts’ holding that Appellant
knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty was not contrary to clearly
established federal law nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The district court
-2-
agreed with the magistrate judge and therefore dismissed the case.
To obtain a certificate of appealability, Appellant must make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order
to meet this burden, he must 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)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
In his request for a certificate of appealability, Appellant argued that he
was not clear on the sentence he could receive and therefore his plea was not
made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. He also argued that the district
court erred by dismissing his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. 1
After carefully reviewing Appellant’s filings in this court, the district
court’s disposition, and the record on appeal (particularly the written plea
agreement and the transcript of the plea hearing), we conclude that reasonable
jurists would not debate the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s claims nor its
1
Appellant further argues that he was sentenced under the wrong
subsection because the state only proved through testing that he possessed 7.68
grams of cocaine and did not test the 65 grams he possessed on a separate
occasion. This argument was not raised in the state courts nor in the district court
and thus has not been properly preserved for appeal in this court. Moreover,
since Appellant voluntarily pled guilty to possession of 25 to 400 grams of
cocaine, he cannot now complain that he should have been sentenced based on the
lesser amount involved in one of the dropped cases against him.
-3-
decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing in this case. Therefore, for
substantially the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge and district court, we
DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the
appeal. We GRANT Appellant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-