F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 5 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RICHARD ARTHUR YOUNG,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 04-1441
v. (D.C. No. 03-Z-785 (BNB)
GARY NEET, Warden FCF, and (D. Colorado)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Pro se Applicant Richard Arthur Young was convicted of second-degree
murder in Colorado state court. Colorado v. Young, 987 P.2d 889, 891 (Colo.
App. 1999). On May 1, 2003, he filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. He sought
relief on several grounds: (1) unconstitutional arrest and search warrants; (2)
denial of due process because the trial court admitted evidence of a marijuana
transaction and did not provide a limiting instruction; (3) failure of the trial court
to consider alternative theories of the case; (4) insufficient evidence of guilt; (5)
denial of due process because the trial court refused to grant a new trial on the
basis of his newly discovered alibi witness; and (6) an excessive sentence. The
district court, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied the
application on the merits as to claims one and two. Because claims three through
five were not exhausted in state proceedings, the district court held that federal
habeas review was barred. It also noted that Applicant’s attempt to raise Blakely
v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), in his objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendations was futile because his failure to raise it in his initial
Application waived the claim and Blakely is not retroactive on collateral appeal.
The district court subsequently denied Applicant’s request for a certificate of
appealability (COA), see 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (requiring a COA), and his request
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Applicant raises five issues in his application to us for a COA: (1) denial
of due process because the trial court admitted evidence of a marijuana
transaction and did not provide a limiting instruction; (2) denial of due process
because the trial court refused to grant a new trial on the basis of his newly
discovered alibi witness; (3) insufficient evidence of guilt; (4) his sentence
violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely; and (5) his
40-year sentence “is irrational and violates [his] rights.” Because no jurist of
reason would disagree with the district court’s assessment of Applicant’s claims,
we deny the application and dismiss the appeal.
-2-
“A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the
merits,” the prisoner “must demonstrate 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).
The inquiry differs, however, if the petition is denied on procedural
grounds. “When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds
without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should
issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling. . . . Where a plain procedural bar is present
and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable
jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the
petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id.
In both instances we recognize that in determining whether to issue a COA,
a “full consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of the
claims” is not required. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Instead,
-3-
the decision must be based on “an overview of the claims in the habeas petition
and a general assessment of their merits.” Id.
Finally, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)
establishes deferential standards of review of a state court’s factual findings and
legal conclusions. “AEDPA . . . mandates that state court factual findings are
presumptively correct and may be rebutted only by ‘clear and convincing
evidence.’” Saiz v. Ortiz, 392 F.3d 1166, 1175 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)). If the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits in the
state court, “we may only grant federal habeas relief if the habeas petitioner can
establish that the state court decision ‘was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States,’ or ‘was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceedings.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) and (2)). Furthermore, our
concern is only whether the state court’s result, not its rationale, is clearly
contrary to or unreasonable under federal law. Id. at 1176.
In considering the merits of Applicant’s first contention—that the Colorado
trial court erred in admitting the marijuana evidence—the operative question is
“whether, considered in light of the entire record, its admission resulted in a
fundamentally unfair trial.” Knighton v. Mullin, 293 F.3d 1165, 1171 (10th Cir.
-4-
2002). We do not set aside the state court’s rulings admitting evidence of “prior
crimes, wrongs or acts unless the probative value of such evidence is so greatly
outweighed by the prejudice flowing from its admission that the admission denies
defendant due process of law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The
Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s admission of the evidence
because “[t]he evidence concerning the marijuana was inextricably interwoven
with the facts of the murder and was relevant to the jury’s understanding of why
defendant and the victim were travelling together and why they may have had a
falling out that ended violently.” Young, 987 P.2d at 894. The court also ruled
that a limiting instruction was unnecessary. Id. The Colorado court’s disposition
of the issue was neither unreasonable under nor clearly contrary to federal law.
Applicant’s second claim—denial of due process because the trial court
refused to grant a new trial on the basis of his newly discovered alibi witness—is,
as noted by the district court, unexhausted because he failed to raise it in his
petition for a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(1)(A) (requiring exhaustion); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838,
845 (1999) (to exhaust, litigants “must give the state courts one full opportunity
to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s
established appellate review process”). Failure to exhaust results in procedural
default of federal habeas review. Id. at 848.
-5-
But even assuming the claim is not defaulted, Applicant is not entitled to
relief on the merits. Applicant’s assertion that he was entitled to a new trial rests
on his claim that “after he was convicted, he recalled for the first time that he had
an alibi witness for most of the time” when the murder occurred. Young, 987
P.2d at 894. The trial court found that the “evidence probably would not have
resulted in an acquittal and that it was available to the defense prior to trial.” Id.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that Applicant “had every reason
. . . to recall his whereabouts” during the time of the murder and that the alibi
witness did not have knowledge of Applicant’s whereabouts during at least part of
the time when the murders may have been committed. Id. Again, the Colorado
court’s disposition of the issue was neither unreasonable under nor clearly
contrary to federal law.
Applicant’s third claim is that there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. This claim, like the second, is unexhausted. Applicant not only
failed to raise it in his petition for a writ of certiorari, but also did not raise it
before either the trial court or the Colorado Court of Appeals. The claim is
therefore procedurally defaulted. Again, however, even if the claim were not
defaulted, it fails on the merits. “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
on a habeas corpus petition, the relevant question is ‘whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
-6-
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
Turrentine v. Mullin, 390 F.3d 1181, 1197 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). If the record supports conflicting
inferences, all such conflicts are resolved in favor of the prosecution. Id. The
magistrate judge’s recommendation quotes the summary of the evidence in the
opinion of the Colorado Court of Appeals. The evidence was undoubtedly
sufficient to support Applicant’s conviction.
Applicant’s fourth and fifth claims both challenge the legality of his
sentence. His claim that his sentence violates Apprendi and Blakely is foreclosed
by circuit precedent. See United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844, 849 (10th Cir.
2005) (Blakely is not retroactively applicable to a case in which conviction was
final before Blakely was decided); United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1219
(10th Cir. 2002) (Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to initial habeas
petitions).
Applicant fares no better on his claim that his 40-year sentence “is
irrational and violates [his] rights.” Application and Motion for Certificate of
Appealability. He challenged his sentence in state court proceedings, arguing that
the trial court abused its discretion by emphasizing his lack of remorse when it
imposed a 45-year sentence. Young, 987 P.2d at 894. The Colorado Court of
Appeals agreed and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 894-95. A different trial
-7-
court imposed a 40-year sentence. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the
40-year sentence during post-conviction proceedings under Colorado Crim. P.
35(c). Applicant failed to challenge his sentence in his second petition for a writ
of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court. Thus, Applicant has not exhausted
his state remedies on this claim.
Further, even if Applicant had exhausted the claim, it fails on the merits.
“We afford wide discretion to the state trial court’s sentencing decision, and
challenges to that decision are not generally constitutionally cognizable, unless it
is shown that the sentence imposed is outside the statutory limits or unauthorized
by law.” Dennis v. Poppel, 222 F.3d 1245, 1258 (10th Cir. 2000). Applicant has
not shown that his sentence violates federal law.
No jurist of reason could find debatable that Applicant’s issues either fail
to state a valid claim for denial of a constitutional right or are properly denied on
procedural grounds. We therefore DENY the application for a COA and
Applicant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-8-