F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 16 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BOBBY TRUJILLO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 98-2105
(D.C. No. CIV-95-149-HB)
RON LYTLE, Warden, Southern New (D. N.M.)
Mexico Correctional Facility and
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , BALDOCK , and HENRY , 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 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Petitioner Bobby Trujillo appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
petition for a writ habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is
before the court on petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability for
leave to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Because we determine that
petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, we deny his application and dismiss the appeal.
On May 2, 1991, petitioner entered a guilty plea to one count of criminal
sexual contact with a minor, one count of criminal sexual penetration of a minor,
and one count of kidnaping. He was sentenced to twenty-seven years of
incarceration followed by two years of parole. Petitioner did not seek to
withdraw his plea, nor did he file a direct appeal of his conviction. Through new
counsel, however, he filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which
was denied on October 24, 1991.
On September 21, 1994, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
state court, which was denied, as was his petition for a writ of certiorari to the
New Mexico Supreme Court. In February 1995 petitioner filed a federal habeas
petition. The court held an evidentiary hearing, after which the magistrate judge
recommended denial of the petition. The district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s proposed findings and recommendations and denied the petition on March
-2-
10, 1998, and denied petitioner’s request to issue a certificate of appealability on
April 20, 1998.
In his appeal to this court, petitioner alleges that: (1) his guilty plea was
not knowingly or voluntarily entered because his counsel gave him false
assurances as to the consequences of his plea; and (2) he was deprived of
effective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not properly investigate
his case and timely notify him of the sentencing proceedings, which precluded the
introduction of mitigating circumstances.
We have reviewed the entire record, including the district court’s order, the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and petitioner’s brief and
application for a certificate of appealability. We agree with the magistrate judge
that petitioner has failed to sufficiently rebut his own declarations made at his
plea hearing that he understood that he was facing at least eighteen years but not
more than thirty years of incarceration and that no one had promised him he
would receive anything close to eighteen years or a light sentence. See Rec. Doc.
68, at 3; Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in
open court carry a strong presumption of verity. The subsequent presentation of
conclusory allegations . . . is subject to summary dismissal, as are contentions that
in the face of the record are wholly incredible.”). We also agree that petitioner
failed to state sufficient facts to establish that his counsel’s alleged failures at
-3-
sentencing resulted in an error of constitutional magnitude. See Rec. Doc. 68, at
3-4; Scrivner v. Tansy , 68 F.3d 1234, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (failing to afford an
opportunity for allocution or to consider mitigating factors at sentencing raises no
constitutional error cognizable in a non-capital federal habeas case). We
conclude that petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, we DENY
petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-
Trujillo v. Lytle
Combined Opinion