F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 12, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
PAUL INMAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 04-1351
v. (District of Colorado)
(D.C. No. 01-M-998)
RICK SOARES; KEN SALAZAR,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Paul Inman seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) so he can appeal
the district court’s denial of the habeas petition he 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 a final order disposing of a § 2254 petition unless the petitioner first obtains
a COA). Inman was convicted in Colorado state court of assault, conspiracy to
commit assault, and possession of drug paraphernalia. On the first day of Inman’s
trial, his counsel advised the court that he also represented a prosecution witness
in an unrelated case. Counsel had obtained waivers from both Inman and the
witness and filed a motion with the court seeking approval of the waivers. The
district court accepted the waivers and permitted counsel to represent Inman.
After his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, Inman sought post-
conviction relief pursuant to Rule 35(c) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Inman argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred when it accepted
his waiver of counsel’s conflict because he was effectively forced to waive his
constitutional right to conflict-free counsel in order to preserve his right to a
speedy trial. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 394 (1968). Inman’s
Rule 35(c) motion was denied. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the
denial, concluding that the record did not support Inman’s contention that a
waiver of his right to a speedy trial was inevitable unless he waived his right to
conflict-free counsel.
Inman filed a pro se § 2254 petition in federal district court and the court
appointed the Federal Public Defender to represent him. After the conflict issue
was briefed, the district court denied the § 2254 petition, rejecting Inman’s
argument that the state court’s determination was an unreasonable application of
federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Specifically, the district court concluded
that the state court’s determinations that Inman’s waiver was valid and that Inman
-2-
was not forced to surrender one constitutional right to assert another right 1 were
supported by the record.
This court cannot grant Inman a COA unless he can demonstrate “that
reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). In evaluating whether
Inman has carried his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though not
definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his
claims. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003). Inman is not required to
demonstrate that his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA. He must,
however, “prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of
mere good faith.” Id. (quotations omitted).
This court has reviewed Inman’s appellate brief, the district court’s order,
and the entire record on appeal pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme
Court in Miller-El and concludes that Inman is not entitled to a COA. The district
court’s resolution of Inman’s claims is not reasonably subject to debate and the
claims are not adequate to deserve further proceedings. Accordingly, Inman has
1
Inman’s right to a speedy trial arose pursuant to state statute, not pursuant
to the Constititution. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-405.
-3-
not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” and is not
entitled to a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This court denies Inman’s request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk of Court
By
Deputy Clerk
-4-