Download 02-7151.pdf

Contents : FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 15 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk LARRY JOE DOSHIER Petitioner-Appellant No. 02-7151 v. (D.C. No. CIV-02-161-S) STATE OF OKLAHOMA (E.D. Oklahoma) Respondent-Appellee. ORDER Before EBEL HENRY and HARTZ Circuit Judges. Larry Joe Doshier a state prisoner appearing pro se seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) that would allow him to appeal the district court s order dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2 254 for failure to exhaust state remedies. S ee 2 8 U.S.C. 2 253(c)(1)(A). He has also filed with this court a Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis challenging his conviction. We deny Mr. Doshier s request for a COA deny his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and dismiss the appeal. On December 8 2000 Mr. Doshier pleaded guilty to one count of manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Apparently he did not directly appeal his conviction or seek relief under Oklahoma s Post-Conviction Procedure Act Okla. Stat. tit. 22 10801089. Instead on December 27 2001 Mr. Doshier filed in the District Court of Seminole County Oklahoma a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (which is a different remedial process from an application for relief under Oklahoma s postconviction statute s ee O kla. Stat. tit. 22 Ch. 18 App. R. 10.6(C)(1)). His petition was denied in a one-paragraph order dated February 13 2002. Mr. Doshier appealed that denial to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) filing a Habeas Corpus Petition challenging his conviction on a number of grounds. The OCCA declined jurisdiction over the petition on March 13 2002 noting that t he writ of habeas corpus is not an authorization to bypass the statutory appeal process and ruling that Mr. Doshier ha d not properly presented th e matter for consideration. R. Tab 1 Ex. 2 at 1. Mr. Doshier was advised that if he believe d he was denied a timely appeal through no fault of his own he should file an application for post-conviction relief in the District Court seeking an out of time appeal. I d. a t 1-2 n.2. Rather than seek an appeal out of time under Oklahoma s post-conviction statute Mr. Doshier filed a 2254 habeas corpus application in federal court. In that application as in his habeas petition to the OCCA Mr. Doshier appears to challenge his conviction on the following grounds: (1) entrapment ( 2) outrageous government conduct (3) ineffective assistance of counsel and (4) the -2- use of a purportedly invalid search warrant. Also he requested an evidentiary hearing. On October 22 2002 the district court dismissed the application without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. This request for a COA followed. A COA can issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). Where as here the district court has denied the application on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims a COA should issue if the applicant demonstrates that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. S lack v. McDaniel 529 U.S. 473 484 (2000). We recognize that in examining whether the district court s resolution was debatable amongst jurists of reason we should not undertake a full consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of the claims. M iller-El v. Cockrell 123 S. Ct. 1029 1039 (2003). Rather t he COA determination under 2253(c) requires an overview o f the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits. I d. ( emphasis added). After consideration of Mr. Doshier s brief the district court s order and the record on appeal we conclude that the district court s determination that Mr. Doshier s 2 254 application should be dismissed for failure to exhaust state -3- remedies is not reasonably debatable. An applicant for a writ of habeas corpus under 2 254 must show that he has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the state. 28 U.S.C. 2 254(b)(1)(A). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied once a federal claim has been f airly presented t o the state courts. C astille v. Peoples 489 U.S. 346 351 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted bracket in original). In Oklahoma habeas corpus is a limited remedy and may not be used to bypass the statutory appeals process. S ee O kla. Stat. tit. 22 Ch. 18 App. R. 10.6(C)(1) S mith v. Oklahoma 546 P.2d 1351 1354 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976) ( We have consistently held that the scope of habeas corpus is limited to a d

INFO HASH : 45defbaa9019eb891ed23e784ecfb599d36ef594

Download now

File Size: 51 kb