Gwinn v. Reid

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 22 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
KEVIN CHARLES GWINN,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 02-1139
v. (D.C. No. 02-Z-306)
TONY REID, Warden, ATTORNEY (D. Colorado)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel
has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is,
therefore, ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Kevin Charles Gwinn, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, requests a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 habeas corpus petition. Because he fails to make a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right, we deny his request for a COA.
I. Background
Mr. Gwinn pleaded guilty to drug possession charges on January 1, 1997
and was sentenced to three years of probation. He was also given a three-year
term of post-sentence “mandatory parole” as required by statute in Colorado. In
April 1998, Mr. Gwinn’s probation was revoked, the result being that he was
required to finish serving his three-year sentence in prison. Mr. Gwinn, given
credit for the portion of his sentence served prior to April 1998, served the
remainder of his sentence. He was subsequently released on mandatory parole.
While on his conditional release Mr. Gwinn failed a urinalysis test. As a
result, he was re-incarcerated under the terms of Colorado’s mandatory parole
scheme. After having served two of his three years of mandatory parole, Mr.
Gwinn filed this petition challenging the constitutionality of his re-incarceration.
The district court denied Mr. Gwinn’s request and subsequently denied him a
COA, and Mr. Gwinn now seeks to appeal those decisions.
-2-
II. Analysis
As an initial matter we note that although both Mr. Gwinn and the district
court treated his habeas corpus petition as a § 2254 petition, because Mr. Gwinn
is challenging the implementation of his sentence rather than the validity of the
underlying conviction, his petition is properly characterized as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition. See Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000) . In order
for Mr. Gwinn, a state prisoner, to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition, he must
obtain a COA. See id. at 868-69. To be entitled to a COA, Mr. Gwinn must make
a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). He may make this showing by demonstrating that the issues he raises
are debatable among jurists, that a court could resolve the issues differently, or
that the questions presented deserve further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).
Because Mr. Gwinn is representing himself on appeal, his pleadings are
construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
Nevertheless, this panel will not act as Mr. Gwinn’s advocate by raising
arguments not included in his request for a COA. Cf. Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting that a pro se inmate retains “burden of
alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based”).
-3-
In his request for a COA, Mr. Gwinn asserts a denial of due process and
equal protection, violation of separation of powers, and violation of his plea
agreement. Most of these issues are raised without clear connection to his
situation. The core of Mr. Gwinn’s argument, however, is ascertainable. He
essentially argues that his present incarceration is unconstitutional because his
plea agreement limits the total possible term of his incarceration to three
years—the maximum sentence actually imposed by the trial court—regardless of
Colorado’s post-sentence mandatory parole scheme. Mr. Gwinn suggests that
because he is now being required to serve up to an additional three years’
incarceration under the revocation of his post-sentence mandatory parole, his
continued incarceration violates his plea agreement.
Mr. Gwinn admits he agreed to a sentence of three years of probation with
the Department of Corrections to be followed by another three years of mandatory
parole upon his completion of the initial three year term. He nevertheless asserts
two bases for challenging his re-incarceration, neither of which has merit.
First, Mr. Gwinn contends that “Mandatory Parole was meant to be served
outside a prison . . . [and re-incarceration for violation of parole can] only [be]
for a short period of 180 days or less.” Aplt’s Br. at 3. Although re-incarceration
is limited to 180 days when the parolee is sent to a “community corrections
program,” see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-2-103(11)(b)(II)(B) (1998), a parolee may
-4-
also be re-incarcerated in a prison for a length up to the full term of the
mandatory parole period. See id. at § 17-2-103(11)(b)(II)(A); Martin v. Colorado ,
27 P.3d 846, 858 (Colo. 2001) (“This new period of confinement is limited only
by the [parole] board’s statutory authority, and is not related to the offender’s
original sentence to incarceration.”). Therefore, Mr. Gwinn’s argument on this
point fails.
Second, Mr. Gwinn argues that the word “parole” means “release” and
therefore that the phrase “mandatory parole” refers to where the parole is to be
served—i.e., that it is mandatory that he serve parole outside of incarceration.
This argument, while imaginative, lacks support and misconstrues the nature of
parole. Someone convicted of a crime who is paroled is conditionally released
from incarceration prior to the completion of his or her sentence. See 59 Am. Jur.
2d Pardon and Parole § 6 (1987). Violation of the terms of parole can result in
the person’s re-incarceration. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-2-103(11)(b)(I).
Mandatory parole is a system of conditional release mandated by the
Colorado legislature that all criminals convicted of class two through six felonies
must serve. 1
See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(A) (1998). “[E]ven a
1
“Mandatory parole,” in being imposed by a judge at sentencing rather than
by prison officials or other members of the executive branch of government after
an inmate’s incarceration has begun, looks more like traditional probation than
true parole. Regardless, violation of the terms of parole, probation, or Colorado’s
(continued...)
-5-
prisoner who serves every single day of his or her prison sentence must remain
subject to the conditions of parole for the additional mandatory period.” Craig v.
Colorado , 986 P.2d 951, 958 n.3 (Colo. 1999). Thus, violation of the terms of
mandatory parole may require that a person be re-incarcerated, even though this
results in the parolee being confined after completion of his or her initial
sentence. As implicitly acknowledged by the Colorado Supreme Court in Craig ,
mandatory parole does not mandate that a parolee serve the entire mandatory
period outside of incarceration; rather, mandatory parole requires that a parolee’s
release after completing his or her initial sentence be conditional.
Because Mr. Gwinn’s arguments on the topic of mandatory parole are
without merit, and because he provides no other basis for asserting a due process,
equal protection, or other constitutional claim, his request fails to make a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, this panel
must deny a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
In his request for a COA Mr. Gwinn cites 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) in requesting
that the court appoint counsel. Section 1915(e) gives the court discretion to
appoint counsel to represent indigent petitioners; however, since Mr. Gwinn did
not file a request to proceed in forma pauperis and because his arguments are
(...continued)
1
mandatory parole can lead to the re-incarceration of the parolee/probationer.
-6-
without merit, we deny his request for appointed counsel. We also deny Mr.
Gwinn’s motion for “release pending review.”
III. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, we DENY a COA, DENY Mr. Gwinn’s
other motions, and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-7-