F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 27 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
G. SAM HOUSTON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 99-1066
(D.C. No. 97-WM-835)
RANDY L. HENDERSON; GALE A. (D. Colo.)
NORTON, Attorney General of the
State of Colorado,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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, or 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.
Mr. G. Sam Houston appeals pro se the denial of his petition for habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and requests a certificate of appealability.
For the reasons set out below, we deny him a certificate of appealability and
dismiss this appeal.
In 1991, Mr. Houston was charged with attempted sexual assault on a child
while he was in a position of trust. He was sentenced in state court to six years of
probation. The following year, he was charged with sexual assault, this time on
adults. He entered a guilty plea to two misdemeanors with respect to the new
charges and also admitted to violating his probation. The state court sentenced
him to eight years based on the probation violation. Mr. Houston then filed for
post-conviction relief under Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(a). His motion was denied. He
appealed and was appointed counsel on appeal. The Colorado Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari.
On May 2, 1997, while still incarcerated, Mr. Houston filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus which the district court denied on recommendation from the
magistrate. Although Mr. Houston has since completed his sentence, his release
does not terminate federal jurisdiction with respect to the pending application that
was filed while he was still incarcerated. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234,
237-38 (1968).
-2-
We review de novo the district court's legal conclusions in dismissing a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Davis v. Executive Dir. of Dep't of
Corrections, 100 F.3d 750, 756 (10th Cir.1996).
In Mr. Houston’s motion for post-conviction relief in state court, he
challenged the voluntariness of his plea to the first offense, an argument the
Colorado Court of Appeals addressed and rejected. In his petition for habeas
corpus, he again argues he did not know the elements of the crime for which he
was charged, particularly the mental state required, and his plea was therefore
involuntary. Having pleaded guilty, a defendant's only avenue for challenging his
conviction is to claim that he did not voluntarily or intelligently enter his plea. 1
See Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 508-09 (1984). A review of the record
reveals, however, that Mr. Houston was apprised of every element of the offense.
The court conducted a thorough Rule 11 inquiry including the elements and the
required mental states of the sexual assault. In this regard, the following
exchange took place:
THE COURT: Please look at paragraph 8 [of the Petition to
Enter a Guilty Plea] which begins on the bottom of page 2 and
continues on the top of page 3. Paragraph 8 contains the elements of
the crime of criminal attempt, sexual assault on a child-position of
trust. Do you understand that if you did not plead guilty to that
1
Other issues Mr. Houston attempts to raise do not go to the voluntariness
of his plea and therefore were waived by his guilty plea.
-3-
charge, the prosecution would be obligated to prove each and every
one of these 11 elements beyond a reasonable doubt?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: As to the crime of criminal attempt, element
number three states that you acted with the culpable mental state
required for the offense of sexual assault on a child. Do you
understand that the words “culpable mental state” mean knowingly?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Have you talk[sic] that over with your lawyer?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Element number four in the elements of the
crime of criminal attempt are that you engaged in conduct
constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the offense
of sexual assault on a child. Have you talked with your lawyer about
what the words “substantial step” mean?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Do you understand that phrase?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: As to the elements of the crime of sexual
assault on a child which are top of page 3 of your petition, element
number three states that you did these things knowingly; that deals
with your state of mind. Do you understand that if you did not plead
guilty to this charge, the prosecution also would be obligated to
prove your state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I understand.
State Court Record, vol. II, Guilty Plea Hearing at 5-6. Accordingly, Mr.
Houston’s argument that he did not know the elements of the crime has no merit.
Mr. Houston challenges the determination by the state court that his
Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(c) motion could be summarily dismissed without an
evidentiary hearing. Alleged violations of state law are not cognizable in a
federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984).
“In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a
-4-
conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). The magistrate judge correctly
determined that Mr. Houston’s claims of defective state proceedings are not
within permissible habeas corpus review in federal court.
Mr. Houston also argues that he was improperly denied appointment of
counsel on his post-conviction motion. Again, we agree with the magistrate
judge’s analysis that any challenge to a state defect is not proper for habeas
corpus review unless it implicates a federal or constitutional violation. “There is
no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings.” See
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991). Nevertheless, Mr. Houston was
appointed counsel on appeal from the denial of his post-conviction motion. We
decline to review his further challenge to state procedures.
We will grant a certificate of appealability only if Mr. Houston has made “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. S
2253(c)(2). Because we find no merit to Mr. Houston’s arguments before this
court, much less a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” we
DENY his application, DENY his motion for leave to proceed in forma paueris
and DISMISS his appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Chief Judge
-5-