F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 28, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
KENNETH HARTFIELD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 04-3352
v.
(D.C. No. 03-CV-3191-JTM)
(D. Kan.)
CHARLES SIMMONS; PHIL KLINE,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER
Before EBEL, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Kenneth Hartfield appeals 1 the district court’s decision
denying him habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his Kansas convictions for
aggravated kidnapping, aggravated criminal sodomy and rape. On appeal,
Hartfield argues that 1) there was insufficient evidence to support any of his
convictions; 2) his attorney provided ineffective representation; 2 and 3) the trial
1
The district court granted Hartfield’s request to proceed in form
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That status continues on appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(3).
2
On appeal, Hartfield specifically argues that his trial attorney was
ineffective for failing to 1) use Officer Naasz’s police report to impeach the
officer’s testimony; 2) object to Nurses Schunn’s and Rosenberg’s testimony;
3) use police reports to rebut Detective Trollope’s testimony; 4) object to the
prosecutor’s remarks made during closing argument; and 5) recall the victim as a
(continued...)
judge failed to hold a hearing to determine whether Hartfield’s seven-year-old
daughter’s testimony was in accord with Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460(dd).
To pursue this appeal, Hartfield must first obtain a certificate of
appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). To be entitled to a COA,
Hartfield must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). And to make this showing, he must establish that
“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved [by the district court] in a different manner or
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quotations omitted).
After carefully considering Hartfield’s arguments and the entire record, we
conclude Hartfield has failed to make a sufficient showing that he is entitled to
COA on any of his claims. Therefore, we DISMISS this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
2
(...continued)
rebuttal witness. In his § 2254 petition, Hartfield argued that his trial counsel
was ineffective for 1) allowing Officer Naasz, Detective Trollope and Nurses
Schunn and Rosenberg to give false testimony; 2) permitting trial court and
prosecutorial misconduct; and 3) failing to call an eyewitness.
-2-