Gaskey v. Hartley

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 4, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
LONNIE A. GASKEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 08-1076
(D. Ct. No. 07-CV-01547-WYD-MJW)
STEVE HARTLEY, Warden; THE (D. Colo.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Lonnie A. Gaskey, a Colorado prisoner appearing pro se,
seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial of his
petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We deny a COA and therefore
dismiss this appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Gaskey pleaded guilty in Colorado state court to two counts of aggravated
robbery, one count of second degree assault, and one count of a crime of violence. He
was sentenced to consecutive prison sentences totaling forty years. He subsequently
moved for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that
his guilty plea was involuntary because his attorney promised him he would receive a
sentence between fifteen and twenty years and because his substitute counsel at the plea
hearing threatened to withdraw from the case if Mr. Gaskey did not plead guilty. He also
argued that his counsel was ineffective by failing to have Mr. Gaskey undergo a mental
evaluation. The motion was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the Colorado Court
of Appeals. Making the same arguments, Mr. Gaskey filed this § 2254 petition for
federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
district court denied the petition and his application for a COA. Mr. Gaskey then filed
this appeal and renewed motion for a COA.
II. DISCUSSION
A petitioner may not appeal the denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254unless a COA is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We will issue a COA “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id.§ 2253(c)(2). This standard requires the petitioner to 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)
(quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Gaskey may show his counsel was constitutionally ineffective only if he
demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
-2-
reasonableness and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced his defense. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 692 (1984). In the context of a guilty
plea, Mr. Gaskey must show that but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded
guilty and instead would have insisted on going to trial. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.
52, 59 (1985).
In this case, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that Mr. Gaskey’s written
agreement to plead guilty informed him that (1) he could receive a sentence in the range
of ten-to-thirty-two years on each of the counts; (2) the court could order the sentences to
be served consecutively; and (3) his plea must be voluntary and not the result of undue
influence or coercion. In addition, the Colorado Court of Appeals emphasized that Mr.
Gaskey told the trial court that he understood the written petition and that he was entering
his plea voluntarily and without additional promises; at no time did he express confusion
or indicate to the court that his counsel had promised a particular sentence. Therefore, the
court concluded that Mr. Gaskey had not shown his plea was unknowing and involuntary
based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Mr. Gaskey does not challenge these findings in his § 2254 petition, contending
only that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to develop his claim. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in declining to conduct such a hearing. This Court “permit[s]
summary disposition of habeas corpus petitions based on claims of unkept promises and
misunderstanding when the court record refutes the claims.” Lasiter v. Thomas, 89 F.3d
699, 703 (10th Cir. 1996). Indeed, we have specifically held that a district court does not
-3-
err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of a plea when the
habeas petitioner’s allegations are contradicted by his statements during the plea
colloquy. See id.As to Mr. Gaskey’s ineffectiveness argument based on his counsel’s failure to
order a mental evaluation, Mr. Gaskey does not explain in his petition how the results of
such an evaluation would have changed his decision to plead guilty or reduced the
sentence he received. Thus, even assuming that counsel should have ordered an
examination, Mr. Gaskey has not demonstrated how he was prejudiced by that failure.
III. CONCLUSION
Reasonable jurists could not debate that Mr. Gaskey failed to present a claim that
he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. We
therefore DENY his application for a COA. We GRANT Mr. Gaskey’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-4-