F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 16 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SHELBY LEONARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 02-2261
D.C. No. CIV-01-1366 BB/LCS
TIM LEMASTER, Warden, New Mexico (D. New Mexico)
State Penitentiary; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Shelby Leonard, a New Mexico state prisoner proceeding pro se, requests a certificate
of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
corpus petition. 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). We deny
Leonard’s request for a COA and dismiss.
Leonard pled no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, issuance of a
worthless check over twenty-five dollars, and failure to appear. Leonard’s habitual-offender
status resulted in a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment, with five suspended, and five
years’ supervised release thereafter. As grounds for federal habeas review, Leonard asserts
that: (1) he was not given a competency hearing despite exhibiting signs of instability and
mental illness; and (2) his plea was involuntary and unknowing. Rejecting these claims and
dismissing the petition, the district court concluded that: (1) a sua sponte competency
hearing was not required under the circumstances as there were insufficient facts before the
trial judge to create a doubt as to Leonard’s competence at the time of his plea hearing; and
(2) audiotapes of the plea colloquy indicate a knowing and voluntary plea and there is
nothing in the record that would suggest that Leonard’s ability to consult with his lawyer or
his ability to understand the proceedings against him was compromised.
To be eligible for a COA, Leonard must make “a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right,” § 2253(c)(2), meaning that “reasonable jurists would find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000). After careful review of the record, we conclude that this standard has
not been met. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court
in denying Leonard’s habeas petition, we DENY a COA and the matter is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk of Court
by:
Deputy Clerk
-2-