Guy v. Wilson

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 26, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JON MICHAEL GUY,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-8087
v. (D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00212-ABJ)
EDDIE WILSON, Warden, Wyoming D. Wyoming
State Penitentiary; GREGORY A.
PHILLIPS, Attorney General, State of
Wyoming,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before MURPHY, EBEL, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on Jon Guy’s request for a certificate of
appealability (“COA”). Guy seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because Guy
has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” id.§ 2253(c)(2), this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.
A Wyoming jury convicted Guy on a single count of attempted second-
degree murder, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-1-301(a)(I) and 6-2-104. On
direct appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Guy’s conviction. Guy v.
State, 184 P.3d 687, 701 (Wyo. 2007). Having exhausted his state-court
remedies, Guy filed the instant § 2254 habeas petition in federal district court. In
a thorough thirty-nine page order, the district court denied Guy’s request for
habeas relief, concluding the Wyoming Supreme Court’s resolution of Guy’s
claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Harrington
v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786-87 (2011) (“As a condition for obtaining habeas
corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court’s
ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification
that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond
any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”).
The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Guy’s appeal from
the dismissal of his § 2254 petition. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003). To be entitled to a COA, Guy must make “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite
showing, he must demonstrate “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.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (quotations omitted). In evaluating
whether Guy has satisfied his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though
not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his
claims. Id. at 338. Although Guy need not demonstrate his appeal will succeed
-2-
to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than the absence of
frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Id.Having undertaken a review of Guy’s appellate filings, the district court’s
Order, and the entire record before this court, we conclude Guy is not entitled to a
COA. In so concluding, this court has nothing to add to the comprehensive
analysis set out by the district court in its order denying Guy habeas relief.
Accordingly, this court DENIES Guy’s request for a COA and DISMISSES this
appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-