F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 2 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RUDOLFO LUCERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 01-2285
(D.C. No. CIV-01-90 LH/DJS)
LAWRENCE TAFOYA, Warden, (D. New Mexico)
Southern New Mexico Correctional
Facility; ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit
Judge.
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 Rudolfo Lucero, a New Mexico inmate appearing pro se , seeks
a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his
habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no appeal may be taken from the denial of
a § 2254 habeas petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). Because
petitioner has not demonstrated “a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right,” this court denies his request and dismisses this appeal.
Id. § 2253(c)(2).
On May 19, 1999, petitioner pled no contest, pursuant to a plea agreement,
to one count of aggravated battery of a household member. He was adjudged to
be a habitual offender and sentenced to a prison term of seven years. Petitioner
filed a timely notice of appeal to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, claiming his
speedy trial rights were violated and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on November 3, 1999,
ruling that petitioner had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal in
connection with his guilty plea and had not alleged his counsel was ineffective in
counseling his plea agreement. On December 8, 1999, petitioner filed a pro se
state habeas corpus petition, again raising his speedy trial rights and ineffective
assistance of counsel claims. The state district court summarily dismissed his
petition on December 15, 1999.
-2-
Petitioner then submitted a pro se petition for writ of certiorari with the
New Mexico Supreme Court on January 18, 2000. That court refused to accept
the submission because it was untimely filed pursuant to New Mexico procedural
rules requiring petitions for certiorari be filed within thirty days of the district
court’s decision. Petitioner filed a motion with the New Mexico Supreme Court
arguing that he delivered his certiorari petition to prison officials on January 13
and, therefore, it should be considered timely by application of the prisoner
“mailbox rule” announced in Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding
that pro se prisoner’s federal notice of appeal deemed “filed” when delivered to
prison officials). The New Mexico Supreme Court ordered briefing on the
application of the prisoner mailbox rule, but ultimately denied the motion without
discussion on February 16, 2000. Petitioner filed a motion with the state district
court on June 1, 2000, to correct an illegal sentence, which was denied on
September 21, 2000.
On January 19, 2001, petitioner filed the instant application for federal
habeas relief, alleging that his speedy trial rights were violated, he was denied
effective assistance of counsel and that he received an illegal sentence. The
district court, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied the
petition. It ruled that petitioner had procedurally defaulted his claims in state
court and had failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for this default or that
-3-
failure to address the claims in federal court would amount to a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. The district court denied petitioner a COA.
In his opening brief and application for COA, petitioner reasserts the
claims in his habeas petition and claims the mailbox rule should have been
applied in determining when his state petition for certiorari was filed. As noted
above, to obtain a COA, petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district
court denies a petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show “that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Petitioner has not met this standard. In Adams v. LeMaster , 223 F.3d 1177,
1183 (10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1195 (2001), this court held that the
mailbox rule did not apply to state habeas petitions in New Mexico. Although
Adams addressed the issue of when a habeas corpus petition was “properly filed”
in state district court for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), this court also
discussed application of the mailbox rule to petitions for certiorari filed in the
New Mexico Supreme Court:
[I]n habeas cases once a petitioner “files” a petition for certiorari
with the New Mexico Supreme Court, the petition is deemed denied
if “certiorari is not granted by the Supreme Court within thirty (30)
days after filing.” N.M. R. Crim. P. 5-802G(3). While we are unable
to find any case law on point, it strains credulity to argue the
-4-
thirty-day period begins running prior to the petition’s arrival at the
New Mexico Supreme Court.
Id. at 1182. In other words, filing of a petition for certiorari in New Mexico must
occur within thirty days of the district court’s decision and is not subject to the
mailbox rule.
Petitioner’s request for a COA is DENIED. The appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-5-