F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 27 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
PATRICK C. LYNN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 99-3208
(D.C. No. 99-CV-3153-DES)
MICHAEL NELSON; ATTORNEY (D. Kan.)
GENERAL OF KANSAS; THE
KANSAS COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , HENRY , 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 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 Patrick C. Lynn was convicted in a Kansas state court in
November 1996 of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated
sodomy, and rape, and was sentenced in January 1997 to more than eighty-eight
years in prison. He perfected a direct appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. On
April 30, 1999, with his direct appeal having not been yet adjudicated, he filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court seeking leave from the
requirement that he first exhaust his claims in state court due to the delay in
adjudicating his direct appeal, asking the district court to provide a “surrogate”
direct appeal, and challenging his convictions on the same grounds he wanted to
raise on direct appeal. Following a response by the state, the district court
determined that Lynn should not be excused from the exhaustion requirement, see
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), and dismissed the petition without prejudice. Lynn filed a
notice of appeal from that decision, and the matter is now before us on his request
for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Lynn is essentially contending that the Kansas courts have inordinately and
unjustifiably delayed the adjudication of his direct criminal appeal. See Harris v.
Champion , 15 F.3d 1538, 1555 (10th Cir. 1994). Although the district court
viewed his petition as seeking relief only from the requirement that he exhaust his
claims, we regard his pro se petition and request for certificate of appealability as
also arguing that his due process rights have been violated. Delay in adjudicating
-2-
a direct criminal appeal may give rise to both claims. See id. at 1557. A delay of
more than two years gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of the
“(i) ineffectiveness of state appellate procedures sufficient to excuse exhaustion
on the petitioner’s underlying claims of unconstitutional trial error, and (ii)
prejudice necessary to support an independent constitutional claim of deprivation
of an effective direct appeal because of delay.” Harris v. Champion , 48 F.3d
1127, 1132 (10th Cir. 1995).
The district court recognized that the rebuttable presumption of ineffective
appellate process arose in this case. By the time Lynn filed his habeas petition,
his state appeal had been pending more than two years. The court concluded,
however, that the presumption was rebutted and the appellate process was not
ineffective because Lynn’s own actions caused the delay, and the delay was
therefore not unjustified. We agree with the district court’s conclusion.
Following perfection of his direct appeal by trial counsel, 1
an appellate
public defender was appointed to prosecute Lynn’s direct appeal to the Kansas
Court of Appeals. In August 1997, the appellate public defender was allowed to
withdraw because Lynn had filed an action against her under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging ineffectiveness of counsel in handling his appeal and conspiracy with the
1
Due to his disagreements with his earlier counsel, this was the third counsel
appointed to represent Lynn at trial.
-3-
state attorney general. 2
The trial court apparently had difficulty finding
replacement counsel, but new counsel was appointed in December 1997. Second
counsel was allowed to withdraw in June 1998 after Lynn threatened to sue him
for malpractice. New counsel was again appointed, and although Lynn had
moved for a new attorney in December 1998, this third counsel filed an opening
brief on Lynn’s behalf in January 1999. Third counsel also moved for a remand
to the trial court for determination of Lynn’s competency. Lynn subsequently
moved again to dismiss the third counsel and to withdraw the opening brief. The
appellate court denied his motion to withdraw counsel’s brief, but permitted Lynn
to file a supplemental pro se brief. In March 1999, the court allowed the third
counsel to withdraw, but in April it denied Lynn’s request to file a supplemental
brief exceeding the fifty-page limit. Throughout this period, the court also
addressed a variety of other motions filed by Lynn pro se.
Clearly, Lynn has been the primary cause of the delay in adjudicating his
direct appeal. His conclusory allegation that the delay has been caused by an
“increasing backlog” in the Kansas Court of Appeals is unpersuasive. He has
2
This court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of this complaint for
failure to state a claim. See Lynn v. Kunen , No. 97-3287, 1998 WL 732804 (10th
Cir. Oct. 19, 1998) (unpublished).
-4-
demonstrated neither that he should be excused from the exhaustion requirement
nor that his due process rights have been violated. 3
Lynn has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). His request for a certificate of
appealability is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue
forthwith. Petitioner’s motion to expedite this matter, filed on March 22, 2000, is
denied as moot.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
3
The fact that, according to Lynn’s “status reports,” the Kansas appellate
court has still not adjudicated his appeal as of January 3, 2000, does not change
our conclusion.
-5-
Lynn v. Nelson
Combined Opinion