Hendricks v. Hargett

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 6 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DAVID R. HENDRICKS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STEVE HARGETT, No. 98-6115
(W. District of Oklahoma)
Respondent-Appellee, (D.C. No. CIV-97-667-R)
and
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondent.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. 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.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
This case is before the court on David R. Hendricks’ application for a
certificate of appealability. Hendricks seeks to appeal the district court’s denial
of Hendricks’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Because Hendricks has
failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” this
court denies Hendricks’ application for a certificate of appealability and
dismisses this appeal.
Hendricks asserts that his Oklahoma convictions for kidnaping and first
degree rape must be vacated because: (1) evidence of another crime was
improperly admitted at his trial; (2) a knife was improperly admitted at trial; (3) a
copy of his certificate of discharge from the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections for a prior conviction was improperly admitted at trial; and (4) the
prosecutor impermissibly vouched for the veracity of a prosecution witness. A
magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which recommended that
Hendricks’ petition be denied. The magistrate thoroughly analyzed Hendricks’
petition and concluded that all of the evidence identified by Hendricks was
properly admitted and that even if it was not properly admitted, the evidence of
guilt was so overwhelming that the admission did not render his trial
fundamentally unfair. As to Hendricks’ claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the
-2-
magistrate noted that Hendricks had taken the prosecutor’s remarks out of
context and that when read in context, the prosecutor’s remarks could not be read
as improper vouching. After de novo review, the district court adopted the
Report and Recommendation and denied the petition.
This court has reviewed Hendricks’ application for a certificate of
appealability and appellate brief, the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation,
the District Court’s Order, and the entire record on appeal. That review
demonstrates that the district court’s resolution of Hendricks’ petition is not
debatable among jurists of reason, subject to a different resolution by this court,
or deserving of further proceedings. See Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880 , 893
& n.4 (1983). Because Hendricks has failed to make the required showing, this
court DENIES his application for a certificate of appealability and DISMISSES
this appeal. Furthermore, because Hendricks has not presented a reasoned,
nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on
appeal, we DENY his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-